Joachim Martillo has written an important paper called Judonia
Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society, purporting to explain,
"What the Israel Lobby Really Is". He spoke with Stephen Walt, of
Walt and Mearsheimer fame, he followed the discussions of Philip Weiss, he
corresponded with Noam Chomsky and Joseph Massad, he had read Israel Shamir's Pardes[2] as
well as James Petras' The Power of Israel in the United States,[3] and
he has had email exchanges with Kevin MacDonald. An American scholar,
Martlllo has some Polish background, and he reads German, Yiddish,
Hebrew, and Polish as well as some Arabic. In his view, understanding the
Israel Lobby can be based only on a thorough hard-nosed
("non-exceptionalist") analysis of Eastern European Jewish history.
This is a heretical view, very close to ours.

It is heretical, because the very far away border of permitted anti-Zionist
discourse still remains short of discussion: whether Jews did similar things
before Zionism, or do we have a temporary aberration connected with the State
of Israel. The moment one integrates modern Jewish behavior with the pre-modern
Jewish behavior, the moment one notices continuity of pre-Zionist and Zionist
Jewish politics, the moment one leaves the safe ground of condemning
occupation, - one crosses into totally forbidden "anti-Semite"
territory. Martillo dared
and ventured there, and came with strong and startling conclusions: the real
issue is not Palestine.
Unless they are neutralized, Israel
lobbying groups, Israel
advocates, Zionists, Neoconservatives, and Friedmanites will steal America
and effectively abolish the Constitution in all but name to create a society of
servitude for all Americans except for those belonging to the hyper-wealthy
transnational Zionist political elite.

This is exactly our view: Palestine
is a symbol, a quintessence of the trouble, but the real issue is our enemy's
attempt to enslave the world. Martillo begins where Walt and Mearsheimer end
their journey. In his view, in order to understand Jews, it is not necessary to
venture into days of Jesus Christ; history of Poland will do. He goes to the days
of Rzeczpospolita,
the PolishCommonwealth (from 1505 until 1795),
then ethnic Ashkenazim constituted economic elite of the realm. They lost this
status in the partitions of Poland.
This is the destroyed Temple;
in Martillo's view, these are good old days the Jews miss. They want to be the
elite as they were in the days of Rzeczpospolita. Jews did well after the collapse of
the PolishCommonwealth, notes Martillo, but
not the level as they would have liked.

"Despite supposedly onerous Czarist oppression, Russian Jews had higher
incomes, more education, and longer life spans than the non-Jewish populations
among whom they lived. They were highly disaffected because of exclusion from
the status and access to which they believed they were entitled, but they were
not obviously more oppressed than the majority of the Czar's subjects and less
oppressed than others. Yuri Slezkine belies the myth of Jewish powerless during
the lead-up to WW2 in The Jewish Century.[4]"

In the US,
the Jews (or Ashkenazim, in Martillo's terminology) resurrected their social
structure and rebuilt it, like ants, who rebuild anthill after being removed to
a new ground. This structure is ostensibly "Israel
advocacy" or "Israel Lobby" but actually advocating Israel's
cause ("Israel Lobby proper") is a small part of its effort. He
soberly states that a USA,
whose dominant elite is Jewish, is not necessarily bending to the Israel Lobby
proper when it pursues of pro-Israel foreign policy. The State of Israel may be
a client state of America,
but America
is a client state of the American Jewish Zionist elite, which is probably in
the process of establishing itself as the permanent national "meritocratic"
elite.

This program has proven so successful because historically Eastern
European Jewish culture strongly controlled social and intellectual deviation.
Many of the social control mechanisms continue to exist, have evolved in the
American environment, and may help explain why liberal Jews have so empowered
the Neocons to the detriment of US foreign policy interests as James Petras[5]
has described.

It is not necessary to look for Freemasonry, the Elders of Zion, the
Illuminati, dark Talmudists, malicious Cabbalists, or some other group of
secret puppeteers: Israel
lobbying activities constitute a natural evolution of Jewish, especially ethnic
Ashkenazi, communal organizations. The structure of Israel lobbying is a response to
historical developments generally unrelated to Zionism. Because there has been
a sort of Darwinian selection in both the official and unofficial organizations
as well as in their techniques, all of which go back often as much two
centuries in European environments, Israel lobbying is naturally far more
effective than a lobby that was put together over the last few decades or so in
response to a specific issue or to serve a specific corporate interest.

Does the so-called "Israel Lobby" merely act to secure the interests
of the State of Israel or is the real goal enhancement of the wealth, status,
and power of those who pay for it? Not only does Israel not pay the
"Israel Lobby," but The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy[6]
does not give a hint who really does, and in any case large sections of the
"Israel Lobby" like the Hollywood Crowd do not appear in the book
even though scholars like Melani McAlister have investigated the
Hollywood-foreign-policy connection in books likes Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests
in the Middle East, 1945-2000.[7]
With such gaps in the analysis of the "Israel Lobby," no one should
be surprised with the weakness of the proposals that Professors Mearsheimer and
Walt make for responding to the "Israel Lobby."

Because Friedmanites have been so prominent in the economic regime that the
occupation has attempted to impose on Iraq, the common identification of
Milton Friedman's economic thinking merely with Cato Institute libertarianism
looks incorrect. In today's political intellectual environment Friedmanism (or
Neoliberalism) looks more like an adjunct of Neoconservatism (in the sense
of Jabotinskian or American Revisionist Zionism) than like an independent
political movement.

Israel Lobbying in Comparison with
Ordinary Lobbies

Martillo notices that the Jewish lobby has
many interests quite unconnected with Israel but equally nefarious.

In Boston the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Justice (JALSA), which is a
spin-off of the American Jewish Congress, has an ongoing project in regendering
American society according to feminist and gay liberation principles. (See Jewish,
Zionist War Against Salvation.[8])

Israel
lobbying efforts benefit from organizational memory that does not exist in
other lobbying situations. The longevity of Jewish Federation organizations can
give Israel Lobbying efforts a generational aspect not seen elsewhere. For
example, Israel Advocacy organizations worked for fifty years to delegitimize
Arabist points of view in the Foreign Service and State Department, to drive
out Arabist officers or bureaucrats, and to replace them with Israel sympathetic personnel. (See The Marginalization of U.S. Mideast Experts.[9])

Possibly because of long-standing relationships with government officials,
because of the fear of the accusations of anti-Semitism, or simply because Jews
are disproportionately represented among government officials especially in the
legal and regulation enforcement divisions, Israel advocacy is unique among
lobbying efforts.

While the American public has not fully comprehended the nature of power
relations, Israeli leaders do, and the American Zionist elite calls all shots
on issues of importance to the American elite from "Who is a Jew" to
whether the USA should
attack Iraq or Iran
first.

The alliance between Israel
and the USA
is in the process of creating an internal American caste system that will be
dominated by a small class of hyper-wealthy Zionists. With the sort of
permanent war that has been envisioned since the beginning of the twentieth
century by a segment of the Zionist elite under the influence of Sorel and with
the application of the Friedmanite Shock Doctrine as described by Naomi Klein
in The Shock Doctrine: The
Rise of Disaster Capitalism,[11]this caste system
will spread globally.

Because Zionist Sorelianism has clear affinity with Friedman's ideas,
the absence of the any discussion of the connections and interrelations between
Friedmanism and Jabotinskianism by Naomi Klein is a glaring omission. While
Jabotinskian Neoconservatism is for the most part a Jewish sect or special
interest, Friedmanist Neoliberalism actively proselytizes itself to non-Jews as
the true economic religion, whose high priesthood tends for the most part to
consist of Jews. Non-Jews like Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Woolsey often come to
accept Jabotinskian Neoconservative foreign policy ideas after indoctrination
with Friedmanite Neolibeal market theory.

Not only is Klein completely misleading when she implies that Israel's
love affair with disaster capitalism only begins after the expections
of the Oslo Process proved illusory, but she failed to mention that the
erasing of the native population from areas under Zionist control in 1947-8 (Holoexaleipsis[12]
or Nakba) with concomitant
seizure of practically all movable and immovable assets from Palestinian
refugees is probably the earliest and purest example of massive Friedman-style
transfer of wealth from the poor of the developing world to a Western elite
(the Zionist political leadership) backed by a Western economic elite (mostly
New York Jewish investment bankers and the Cousinhood of the wealthiest British
Jews). The creation of the State of Israel on the shards of Arab Palestine is
the Zionist version of the Shock Doctrine.

Klein neglects to mention that the hyper-wealthy US Zionist elite
and Israeli government have been heavily involved directly and indirectly
in manipulating the US
economy in criminal violation of SEC regulations by stoking,
financing, and picking winners in the homeland security investment bubble that
she describes in Chapter 14 of her book.

The Israeli economy or more properly a small segment of hyper-wealthy Israeli
Jews linked by family and business relations to the dominant US Zionist elite
is thriving as the US
economy is tanking and Iraq
is being ground down. It is the outcome of which leading Zionists dreamed in
the twenties, and it has a high probability of spreading from the ME throughout
the Muslim world to South America, and to
parts of the former Eastern block.

The Kremlin, which has never had much tolerance for internal competing power
centers or external powers mucking in its backyard, saw danger in the extension
of a transnational hyper-wealthy Zionist political elite to Russia and has taken preventive action against
Jewish oligarchs within the territories of the former Soviet
Union. It was stunning how quickly Jewish and Friedmanite groups
rushed to support Mikhail Khodorkovski in his power struggle with the Russian
government.

Among religious, leftist, and right wing ethnic Ashkenazim there has long been
a current of thought that Jews are safest in alliance (or better in dominating)
an undemocratic government. Thanks to the Patriot act and other actions of the
Bush administration, the undemocratic Zionist future is coming into being right
before our eyes, and McCain looks like the most likely of current present
candidates to bring about the fulfillment of the ultimate globalized Zionist
dystopia, but Zionists throughout the political system are poised to influence
any other possible victor except Ron Paul, whom Zionist facilitators and
gate-keepers in the US media are trying to starve of media attention.

Abolishing Israel
and eradicating Zionism would not eliminate the exploitive tendencies of
globalization but would destroy the focal point of the forces that are aiming
for the worst of all globalized futures.

The Zionist movement assumed from its earliest phases that it would be
dependent on wealthy and influential Jews in the Diaspora. Members of the
Counsinhood of Britain's wealthiest Jews probably paid for the Balfour
Declaration. After the propaganda reverses of the first Intifada, the need for
an even wealthier and more influential class of Jewish Zionists in the USA
became obvious.

[In this strategic framework, the Zionist movement also depends on Jews, who
are not necessarily wealthy but are in critical positions to serve the Zionist
movement especially in intelligence or logistics matters. Such individuals are
today called saya`nim. The spy
Jonathan Pollard is a particularly egregious saya`an,
who was caught. I have expanded the meaning of the term in this document to
include Jewish stealth helpers in Israel Lobbying efforts.]

In addition to saya`nim,
Zionists have often used Shabbesgoyim
like Orde Wingate during the pre-State period or more recently John McCain III
and his father Admiral John McCain, Jr., who absolved Israel of blame in the
attack on the USS Liberty. (See Money
Jews, Brain Jews, Politics.[13])
The Zionist movement has tended to recruit and reward Shabbesgoyim in families. New York
Zionist campaign contributions have rewarded John McCain throughout his
political career. Today McCain represents the combined Neoconservative
Friedmanite position in Republican politics without — until recently — a lot of
the social conservative baggage to which many American Jews and Friedmanites
object.]

Zionist connections in the investment banking industry led to earlier IPOs in
the 90s with little or no evidence of profitability. Subprime mortgages were a
similar class of dubious investments, whose true nature was obscured in CDOs
(collateralized debt obligations), and the valuation of Google and similar
companies like Facebook has similar dubious characteristic. Some serious
forensic financial analysis is needed to understand these economic
developments, but the end result has been very clear in the development of a
powerful new American hyper-wealthy political-economic class that is mostly
Jewish and willing to put a lot of money into Israel
advocacy and into influencing the US government.

While many members of this New Jewish Elite would reflexively put money into Israel because of long Zionist indoctrination,
they also need Israel as a
means to hide their wealth because Israel
has a level of economic transparency and corruption comparable to Italy or Egypt. The Bar-Lev line in Tel Aviv
is an early indicator of the degree of embezzlement and sweetheart deals in
Israeli economics and politics. Israelis have long made a lot of money in
providing money laundering and other transaction hiding services both to Jews
and non-Jews. Obviously, all parties in this sort of business have an interest
in preserving the State of Israel to make sure that this sort business
continues.

Post-9/11 Islamophobic scare-mongering as well as the Iraqi occupation has
created a growth industry in hardware and software for security, control, and
checkpoints. This industry understands that its profitability depends on
international policies that maintain conflict through unconditional support of
Zionism.

Ongoing Zionist indoctrination of the American public has
produced a Zionist web of influence, conditioned thinking and reflexive
behavior that is breath-taking in its pervasiveness.

Even without the presence of media gatekeepers and facilitators, journalists in
print, broadcast and cable media almost invariably misrepresent relevant Middle
Eastern or Eastern European current events or history. There is little
reluctance to turn Zionist or IDF press releases into news reports with no
qualifications.

American news organizations almost invariably misquote and mistranslate Iranian
President Ahmedinejad, and America media use tendentious Zionist language like
the "right to self-defense," "Muslim extremism," and
"Arab intransigence" while almost never conceding a similar right of
Palestinian or Arab self-defense or addressing issues of Jewish racism,
extremism or fanaticism. During the recent Lebanon war, the American media
with rare exceptions took the Israeli point of view.

Only recently have American media begun to concede the role of Russian Jews in
the Russian Revolution and the murder of the Czar's family. While scholarly
journals discuss the Jewish role in the Soviet security apparatus before the
end of WW2, no inkling of the Soviet Jewish role in mass murder, ethnic
cleansing and genocide is allowed to reach the general public. Such facts would
interfere with the Zionist legitimization narrative which requires European
Jews to be innocent powerless victims of the German Nazis, and reasonable
people would drawn the obvious analogy between Soviet Ashkenazi and Zionist
Ashkenazi ethnic cleansing or genocidalism.

Only occasionally does accurate depiction of Zionist ethnic cleansing in 1947-8
ever reach the American public, and descriptions of the start of the 1967 war —
even on NPR — still include descriptions of the movement
("barreling") of Egyptian tanks through Sinai to attack Israel.

Roman Catholics according to statistical analysis are less sympathetic to
Zionism than other Americans. It is intriguing that practically every time the
Boston Globe runs a story that
features a Catholic cleric expressing a criticism of Israel, within
approximately a week, it also runs a story about a Catholic cleric sex scandal
sometimes featuring events from as much as 25 years ago as if to provide some
crude sort of "balance" that even CAMERA and HonestReporting do not
advocate. It is an often-unconscious behavior more often associated with an
angry ethnic press, and it may be significant

that the BostonGlobe Editorial Board includes
Lawrence Harmon, who was editor at the BostonJewish Advocate and

that paid entry level newspaper jobs in the USA
nowadays seem to be found mostly at the ethnic Jewish press.

The hyper-wealthy Zionist elite is trying
to provide American colleges and universities with Israel Studies
programs in which only Zionistically correct scholars will teach while stealth
and overt Israel advocacy groups and individuals attempt to drive any scholars
critical of Zionism from American education. (See Jacob
Lassner and Nadia Abu el Haj.[14])

Altogether Israel Lobbying efforts are grinding down American Constitutional
rights and Israelizing society to the point where the American political system
is under attack by a wide-ranging seditious conspiracy, and the side-effect of
Islamophobic and Arabophobic incitement against Arab or Muslim investments or
university contributions or charitable donations, is discouraging the flow of
capital from Saudia and the Gulf when the US economy most desperately needs
such liquidity.

Even if American gets over the current economic crisis, the alliance with Israel at this point has probably cost every
current US
taxpayer at least $10,000.00, and the costs at this point are rising at least
geometrically thanks to Neocon-orchestrated policies.

Pointing out the cost of Israel
to each and every American is a good starting point to counteract Israel
lobbying and advocacy.

The Zionism of Christian evangelical fundamentalists is part of a generational
program of Jabotinskians (see Backgrounder[18])
but is not particularly deep. Obviously, Rapturists do not care much about the
cost of Israel to America, but Christian Zionism can be fought by scriptural
disputation, by questioning the patriotism of its leaders and by exposing
surreptitious Jewish funding and organizing.

In other areas Israel advocates have had so much success because in today's
America Jews play by a set of rules completely different from all other Americans,
and even not particularly Zionist Jews have no real incentive to challenge the
system, which

confers upon them the status of Moral Arbiters,

makes them Major
Players in a dramatic narrative of national rebirth,

renders them Deserving
Beneficiaries of programs like Taglit (Birthright Israel)
as well as of Jewish networks in academia, the professions or
politics, and

gives them Total
Certainty of their own righteousness as Wielders of the Sword
of the all-powerful accusation of anti-Semitism.

At the college level, the International Hillel
Society acts like a junior auxiliary to the KKK by running racist programs like
Taglit/Birthright Israel[19]
and by hosting extremist speakers that incite murder and genocide against
Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims or simply deny that they are human.

Jewish organizations, no matter how much they campaign against laws and
candidates, get a completely pass of the rules and regulations of 501(c)(3)
organizations. The tax fraud probably reaches tens of billions of dollars at
this point.

Neutralizing Israel lobbying
and advocacy groups will be extremely difficult without a push for the US
government to enforce laws equally for Jews and non-Jews. Then once a good part
of the American public realizes that Israel
is a terror state, the USA
will be forced to apply anti-terror laws apply and seize assets of organized
Jewish community along with those of Zionist billionaires as terrorism
supporters just as Islamic charities have been stripped of their funds.

Until the US government
begins to enforce laws equitably, activists will have to research real estate
transactions and investigate who is paying for Israel advocacy programs. They will
have to put together a who's who of Zionist subversion in the USA.

To change the consciousness of Americans, activists must fight American
Holocaust religion and work for recognition

that the mass murders of Jews during WW2 were not
exceptional or unique,

that Palestinians, Armenians, Balkan Muslims, and
Circassians have all been genocided from the nineteenth through the
twentieth century and

that Soviet Jews were up to the eyeballs in mass
murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide long before German Nazis, Eastern
Europeans, and liberated Soviet nationalities began to kill Jews
systematically out of fear and hatred resulting from the Jewish role in
the Soviet Union.

Activists will have to challenge American Jews socially
at interfaith activities, community events and elsewhere. They must demand
clarification of Jewish loyalties and force Jewish leaders to acknowledge

that Americans are not obligated to support Israel
and

that hating Jews for what they do (unlike hating Jews
for being Jews) is not anti-Semitism.

Activists need to make effort to counter Israel
advocacy and Holocaust studies at the high school and even grammar school
levels. They need to work for coordination among groups consisting of
anti-Zionist Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, genuinely anti-Israel Jewish
Americans, conservatives, liberals, and religious people (especially Roman
Catholics).

Bottom line: Joachim Martillo came to
the same conclusion as Israel
Shamir and James Petras, namely, it is not only about Palestine. And we have to deal with it, if we
want to liberate Palestine,
or stay free wherever we are.

Israel Shamir is a regular
columnist for Novakeo.com

A native of Novosibirsk,
Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi
from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy
of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved
to Israel,
served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war. After his
military service he resumed his study of Law at the HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession
in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer. He got his first taste of
journalism with Israel
Radio, and later went freelance. His varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos
and Cambodia in the last
stages of the war in South East Asia. In 1975,
Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London.
In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv
and other papers from Japan.
While in Tokyo,
he wrote Travels with My Son,
his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics.

Because
the sessions were off the record, I cannot report Professor Walt's discussion
of US
democratization policy, but I did talk with him about the difficulty
of understanding the Israel Lobby without a thorough understanding of
Eastern European Jewish social and political culture. He told me that he was
not going to learn Yiddish at this point in his career. The response is not
unreasonable. Realist foreign policy analysis does not delve much into
historical backgrounds, and most historiography available about Jews to
English-speaking readers is dreadful and verges on hagiography.

Not
only had Norman Finkelstein, Joseph Massad, and Noam Chomsky already
expressed significant disagreement with the Mearsheimer and Walt analysis as it
had appeared in the London Review of Books
and in a Harvard Kennedy School working paper by this time period, but
Philip Weiss had begun discussing the Israel Lobby on his Mondoweiss New York Observer blog in a way that
simultaneously agreed and disagreed with the two authors because
Weiss did not maintain a clear distinction between the Israel Lobby, the
organized Jewish community and the New Jewish Elite, which Weiss argues has
supplanted the old WASP elite.

Whereas
Professor Chomsky criticizes Walt and Mearsheimer because of the lack of
clarity in their definition of the Israel Lobby, in a sense Weiss builds on the
diffuseness of the Lobby. In any case, a USA, whose dominant elite is
Jewish, is not necessarily bending to the Israel Lobby when it pursues of
pro-Israel foreign policy.

Mearsheimer,
Walt, Finkelstein,[i] Massad, Chomsky and Weiss
are all correct. Their disagreements result from problems of framework,
language and lack of historical context. Because a complete
reworking of the Mearsheimer and Walt thesis would require a text at least
twice as long as The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,[22] the following paper
should only be considered a brief introduction to a rigorous unified
analysis based in a non-exceptionalist understanding of Eastern European Jewish
history.

that the disappearance of the
Zionist state from the Middle East would at worst harm the USA
in no significant way whatsoever.

MIT
Professor Noam Chomsky would correctly point out that one could make a good
case for the opposite of the above assertions, but debating the above claims
misses the main issue. The real problem is the lack of a genuinely open debate
in Washington or in the media about the US alliance with Israel.

The
two scholars underscore this issue and provide some good comic relief when
they claim that there is a strong moral case for supporting Israel even though a good part of
the book clarifies just how vacuous a belief in the justice of Zionism and in
the morality of Israeli practices really is.

Yet,
the book is flawed by acceptance of too many Zionist and Jewish
claims at face value.

When
the professors write, "There is no question that Jews suffered greatly
from the despicable legacy of anti-Semitism and that Israel's creation was
an appropriate response to a long record of crimes," they are
repeating both ethnic Ashkenazi primordialist essentialism
and also the basic creed of the so-called "pogrom and
persecution" version of Jewish history. Neither assumption holds up under
scrutiny.

The
second century Roman Historian Dio Cassius wrote "all who observe Judaic
law may be called Judeans, despite the ethnic group from which they
originate."

We
have forgotten that Yiddish-speaking Jews were no mere religious or linguistic
minority but formed one of Europe's nations,
ultimately more populous than many others — eventually to outnumber Bosnians,
Croats, Danes, Estonians, Latvians, Slovaks, Slovenians and Swiss, not to
mention the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. What is more, their contribution to
central and eastern Europe's economic, social and intellectual development was
utterly disproportionate to their numbers. The Yiddish people must be counted
among the founder nations of Europe. (Please
take note Ireland, Spain, Italy
and Poland,
who have pressed for "the Christian roots of the continent" to be
proclaimed in the constitution of the European Union.)

In
the PolishCommonwealth ethnic
Ashkenazim constituted an economic elite. They lost this status in the
partitions of Poland.

Yet,
despite supposedly onerously Czarist oppression, Russian Jews had higher
incomes, more education, and longer life spans than the non-Jewish
populations among whom they lived. They were highly disaffected because of
exclusion from the status and access to which they believed they were entitled,
but they were not obviously more oppressed than the majority of the Czar's
subjects and less oppressed than others.

The Professors
do not even ask whether stated reasons for supporting Israel are the real or the same reasons for all Israel
advocates throughout the "Israel Lobby." Do the leaders and followers
even share the same overall goals?

The
same question applies today. Does the so-called "Israel Lobby" merely
act to secure the interests of the State of Israel or is the real goal
enhancement of the wealth, status, and power of those who pay for it?
After all Saudi Arabia pays its professional
lobbyists, who consequently serve the Saudi state.

Not
only does Israel not pay the "Israel Lobby," but The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy[30]does not give
a hint who really does, and in any case large sections of the "Israel Lobby"
like the Hollywood Crowd do not even appear in the book even though scholars
like Melani McAlister have investigated the Hollywood foreign policy connection
in books likes Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests
in the Middle East, 1945-2000.[31]With such gaps in the analysis of the
"Israel Lobby," no one should be surprised with the weakness of the
proposals that Professors Mearsheimer and Walt make for responding to the
"Israel Lobby."

Their
book assumes that "the Israel Lobby" is simply another lobby except
for greater effectiveness.

Tony
Karon, who is the senior editor of Time.com, recently commented on
Philip Weiss's blog

"that
a lot of the general AIPAC lines have been internalized in the U.S.
political mainstream. And in the process, AIPAC has established itself as
synonymous not just with Israel,
but with philo-Semitism. What you see at that annual AIPAC conference where
Democrats and Republicans line up to kiss ass is a graphic demonstration of the
fact that AIPAC no longer even needs to go after the politicians, they come to
AIPAC cap in hand."[See Making
YIVO a Zionist Organization.[32]]

Thus
the primary Israel
advocacy organization has effectively become an American political
institution that Americans accept without reservation for fear of the
accusation of anti-Semitism.

As
Walt and Mearsheimer point out, the achievement of Israel advocacy is impressive by
any standard. The success results from collaboration of an extremely diverse
web of organizations and individuals that specialize in different aspects of
the lobbying project and that work together on an “as needed” basis.

A
member of the web can be classified in one dimension by message transparency
and in another dimension by individual or organizational transparency.

Karon’s comment above indicates that AIPAC has no need for
a lot of opaqueness, but in many situations concealment of aspects of the
Israel Advocate may increase effectiveness of a message. John Hagee’s
Christians United for Israel,
albeit secretly funded and run by Jews, is almost excessively public about
its lobbying efforts because it probably exists to prove that Israel advocacy is not a Jews-only
production. (Jewish-dominated film and music industries routinely create
stars. It apparently costs a good deal less money and effort to put someone on
the A-list of Christian Israel lobbying.)

Following
the lead of AIPAC some think tanks like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs) and WINEP (Washington Institute for Near East Policy) make no
effort to conceal their Israel focus, but others like the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracy try to conceal Neocon Zionist agendas behind a message of
patriotism and anti-terrorism often combined with scare-mongering and anti-Arab
or anti-Muslim incitement.

HonestReporting
is a media watch dog like CAMERA but obscures its organizational structure and
especially its connection to Aish Hatorah, which encourages Jews to become
observant and then enmeshes such Jewish returnees in an occult mystical
nationalist Zionist agenda.

The
David Project pretends to be a Jewish communal organization that teaches Jewish
educators how to talk about Israel while StandWithUs claims to raise the Israel
consciousness of students on campus, but both act as attack dogs that
apparently raise money in proportion to the level of their nastiness.

The
David Project orchestrated an attack on the Roxbury Mosque as part of an
ongoing program of “diminishing the impact of Israel’s
detractors” by normalizing Islamophobia so that American Muslim criticism of Israel
will be dismissed out of hand. (See Battle
waged in Boston over new mosque.[33])

StandWithUs
makes a special effort to counteract Jewish critics of Israel in the university
environment. The organization was so upset with Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel that it has been trying to
deny distribution to all books from Pluto Press that reach the American
Public via the University of Michigan Press. (See Zionist
attack on Pluto Press[34]
andThe
Boston Globe's Problem with Muslims.[35])

Perhaps the most eminent of the four, Reuven
Zaslani, eventually became the founder of Israel’s external espionage agency,
the Mossad. Zaslani later changed his name to Shiloach, and the Middle EastCenter
at TelAvivUniversity (now the MosheDayanCenter) was named for him
for a time. The two names that this center has borne illustrate the intimate
(and thoroughly unselfconscious) relationship within Israel institutions between
academic study of the region on the one hand, and both intelligence work and
warfare directed against the Arabs on the other.

Zionist groups would like to use America
academia in the same way, and the Israeli mission to the US plays a large role in the battle for the
control of academic discourse about the Middle East.

Lately Ruth Wisse has been faculty advisor to New
Society: The HarvardCollege Student Middle East
Journal. Here is the description.[39]

New Society will be a forward-looking biannual
journal of scholarship and opinion on the history, politics and culture of the Middle East. It will encourage students and faculty
members to debate positive visions for the future of the region. Drawing its
ideas from a wide range of contributors, the journal will feature a combination
of long, scholarly essays, shorter op-ed style articles, reviews of books,
movies and concerts, photographs and artwork, write-ups of events on campus,
and interviews. It will publish students, faculty members, and associated
scholars based on the quality of their scholarship and writing, but the journal
will focus on nurturing and promoting undergraduate writers and editors in
particular.

The journal’s content is predictably Zionistically correct.
(See New Society.[40])

Like Wisse, Steven Spielberg has
Jewish interests beyond Israel,
but the ending of Schindler’s List was simply Zionist propaganda that
implicitly justified the theft of Palestine
from the native population. (See Married to Another Man, Married to Another Woman.[41])

Like
Wisse and Spielberg, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish
Organizations is not exclusively focused on Israel
advocacy, but today its most public role consists of representing the
concerns of the organized Jewish community to the President of the United States.

Like
the Conference practically every other group within the organized Jewish
community provides some degree of overt Israel
advocacy no matter how small a role Israel plays in the organization’s
official mission statement. Examples run from

running million dollar
campaigns against Somerville Divestment from Israel as the Boston Jewish
Community Relations Council did to

providing Jewish
self-indoctrination seminars and lectures at local synagogues.

Itamar
Rabinovich was the former Ambassador of Israel to the U.S., past President of Tel Aviv
University, and Camp David Syrian Negotiator, and currently is a lecturer at
Harvard. After the briefing, you will be given the opportunity to share your
thoughts and concerns about Israel
in an open community discussion. A dessert reception will follow (dietary laws
observed). At TempleOhabei Shalom in Brookline. RSVP required. To register or for
more information, please call or email.

The
United StatesHolocaustMemorialMuseum
and the BostonPublic school system through Zionized
history textbooks[43]
put our various sorts of subliminal Zionist messages.

Many
media organizations like those owned by Rupert Murdoch mix genuine news
reporting with overt and indirect Zionist propaganda.

MEMRI
has been particularly successful in masking its true nature as an Israel
advocacy organization associated with Israeli intelligence services. Because
far too many trust its selective and misleading translations, MEMRI is one of
most effective Israel
advocates.(See What Sanabel
said.[44])

The
movie Exodus was overt Zionist
propaganda but unlike Obsession, Radical
Islam's War against the West, was not produced by an
officially Zionist organization even if the Israeli government directly or
indirectly provided some of the investment. (See Zionist
Film: Exodus - Terrorism is Good.[45])

Israel Advocates as Thought Police

Then
there are all sorts of groups and individuals that covertly and informally act
as Israel
advocates. Jewish cliques within Interfaith discussion groups[ii]
often engage in subtle Israel
advocacy or enmeshment while the often-transnational Jewish networks in
academia, across various professions and in the finance industry often serve
Zionist purposes of exclusion of Arabs, Muslims and anti-Zionists or of control
of discourse. The David Project, which works with informal networks of Jewish
doctors, has inserted Zionist propaganda into the HarvardMedicalSchool through its
subsidiary X-Ray Project.[iii]

The members
of the Jewish finance networks trade insider information and protect
each other. Membership generally requires politically correct attitudes
towards Israel.
Expressions of sympathy toward Palestinians can end careers — at least until
Gulf and Saudi Arabs buy enough of the NY investment banks, but the networks
might manage to persist with greater secrecy.

Even
though Spielberg himself is an Israel
advocate, he strayed from Zionist political correctness in Munich
and was subjected to a concerted media attack. The Hollywood Crowd got the
message, and the marketing of Munich
ran into all sorts of “unforeseen” problems. As a result, the movie probably
only made one third of reasonable expectations in gross ticket receipts, and it
will probably be a long time before Spielberg deviates from the Zionist
narrative to give Palestinians another 20 seconds of sympathy.

Beyond
the facilitators and gatekeepers there are thousands to tens of thousands —
often students or retirees — who will make faxes, letters, calls, emails or
come to gatherings on behalf of organizations connected with Israel
advocacy.

Israel Advocacy, the US Government, and the Occupation of Iraq

The Neocon Movement, which is the current incarnation of
the American Revisionist or Jabotinskian movement, is not an Israel advocacy group or
organization, but its members distribute themselves either

throughout the
matrix of organizations that take part in lobbying the US government on behalf of Israel
or

throughout the
government itself, where according to J. Brady Kiesling[49]
they so embody the Zionist or Israeli viewpoint that they act as if
infected by Israel clientitis.

Friedmanites
have been so prominent in the economic regime that the occupation has
attempted to impose on Iraq
that the common identification of Milton Friedman's economic thinking
merely with Cato Institute libertarianism looks incorrect. In today's political
intellectual environment Friedmanism looks more like an adjunct of
Neoconservatism.

Israel Lobbying in Comparison with
Ordinary Lobbies

The
complex composite structure of Israel
advocacy is unusual among lobbying efforts but not unknown.

Environmental
and other public interest group advocacy, unlike corporate and foreign
government lobbying, tends to divide tasks among a set of organizations
that each have their own sources of funding.

For
a given lobbying project, lobbies with a complex organizational structure
generally assign a temporary coordination center. The Jewish Federation has a
long history of coordinating resources within the Jewish community and seems to
provide a permanent coordination center for Israel lobbying from the
national level of opposing an AWACS sale down to pressuring a Barnes
and Noble store for hosting a Palestinian author like Susan Abulhawa. (See
Lobby
activities: It's just a fr*ggin' novel!.[50])

The
Jewish Federation also works through its educational, media updating,
propaganda and indoctrination efforts to make sure that a large number of
Jewish and a lesser number non-Jewish volunteers are available to act as foot
soldiers (saya`nim and
non-Jewish volunteers) in Israel advocacy. Such foot soldiers like the
enlisted men in a regular army rarely understand the big picture or have
insight into the strategies of the leadership (as Israel Shamir has pointed
out).

Israel advocacy is probably
unique in the degree that the unofficial lobbying organizations have their own
day-to-day programs that have little or no direct connection to the State
of Israel even if on occasion the quotidian activities can serve in
pro-Israel efforts. Such projects probably constitute an aspect of
the diffuseness to which Chomsky has referred.

In
Boston the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Justice (JALSA), which is a
spin-off of the American Jewish Congress, has an ongoing project in regendering
American society according to feminist and gay liberation principles.

An
Israel Lobbying effort coordinated by the JCRC might use concepts from the
JALSA regendering activity, to wit, the argument that Americans should
have no sympathy for Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims because they tend to be
anti-feminist and anti-gay. In any case, the distinction between ongoing local
projects and Israel advocacy
is not always distinct even in the case of AIPAC, which was established —
as Professor Kovel recently pointed out to me — shortly after the Rosenberg espionage case
became public.

AIPAC
had to make sure

that Americans distinguished
bad Jewish communists from good Jewish Zionists and

that Congress did not take an
interest in the Israel's
nuclear ambitions, which according to Seymour Hersh wealthy American Jews
were funding.

Because
Jewish Federation organizations have been coordinating projects for a long time
Israel Lobbying efforts benefit from organizational memory that does not exist
in other lobbying situations. The longevity of Jewish Federation
organizations can give Israel Lobbying efforts a generational aspect
not seen elsewhere. For example, Israel Advocacy organizations worked for fifty
years to delegitimize Arabist points of view in the foreign service and state
department, drive out Arabist officers or bureaucrats and replace them with Israel
sympathetic personnel. (See The
Marginalization of U.S. Mideast Experts.[51])

Possibly
because of long-standing relationships with government officials, because of
the fear of the accusations of anti-Semitism, or simply because Jews are
disproportionately represented among government officials especially in the
legal and regulation enforcement divisions (another class of saya`nim), Israel advocacy is unique
among lobbying efforts in that participating groups and individuals for the
most part get a pass on tax code, constitutional, and criminal — especially SEC
— issues as happened recently when the existence of an AJC memorandum was
revealed that questioned the congruence of Obama's thinking with Jewish
interests or goals. (See Internal Memo Takes On Obama’s
Mideast Approach - Forward.com.[52])
The IRS would have immediately announced an investigation to determine whether
any other 501(c)(3) organization in a similar situation was violating the rules
with regard to its tax deductible status.

In other words, not only are Americans subjected to often
very well camouflaged pro-Israel indoctrination in practically any situation
often from completely unexpected sources, but Israel advocates also do not even
bother to obey those few rules that the government has established for such
activities.

The
activities associated with Israel advocacy have the appearance of vast
conspiracies especially when a financier like Marc Rich uses all sorts of
strings of influence within the Jewish community to obtain an eleventh hour
pardon from Clinton or when Jewish academics, Jewish alumni and Israel advocacy
organizations mobilize in an attempt to prevent a Palestinian-origin academic
like Nadia Abu el-Haj, who has an interest in Jewish studies, from obtaining
tenure. The signers of the Deny Nadia Abu El-Haj Tenure
Petition[53] are breath taking in
their almost uniform indication of German Jewish and ethnic Ashkenazi origin.

Nevertheless
as much as conspiracy theorists find evidence of freemasonry, the elders of Zion, the illuminati, dark Talmudists, malicious
Cabbalists, or some other group of secret puppeteers, Israel lobbying activities
constitute a natural evolution of Jewish, especially ethnic Ashkenazi, communal
organizations.

The
structure of Israel
lobbying is a response to historical developments generally unrelated to
Zionism.

Because
there has been a sort of Darwinian selection in both the official and
unofficial organizations as well as in their techniques, all of which go back
often as much two centuries in European environments, Israel lobbying is
naturally far more effective than a lobby that was put together over the last
few decades or so in response to a specific issue or to serve a specific
corporate interest.

Israel
lobbying has for the most part totally manipulated the US government into
subordinating US interests to Israeli interests to the detriment or harm of the
nation, but Mearsheimer and Walt fail to describe the full magnitude
of the problem.

Bat-Ami
Zucker points out in Ha-Mesoret
Ha-Mishpatit ve-Ha-Zionit shel Louis D. Brandeis [The Legal and Zionist
Tradition of Louis D. Brandeis, in Hebrew ] that Brandeis aimed to
demonstrate that Zionists were complete and better Americans. In other words
Zionism at least for Brandeis and people like him was part of the German
Jewish Americanization project (and provided an alternative to Jewish
radicalism or communism here in the USA).

Eighty
years American Jews have moved beyond mere assimilation. The New Jewish
Elite that supplanted the older New York German Jewish elite has been
assimilating US
society and culture to Jewish standards for the last generation,[iv]
and Jewish groups are now at the centers of American power.

Mort Zuckerman,
the editor of U.S. News & World Report, called Israel
a "client state" of the United States.

"Israel
has to understand — like it or not — it is not a great power. It is a client
state. And therefore, it must be dependent upon a great power," Zuckerman
said during an interview on Shalom TV's "World Jewish News" show last
week. "There is no question that the United
States has been and is the most reliable long-term friend
and ally that Israel
has, and it must do what it has to do in order to maintain that relationship.
And if [cooperating with Bush's Annapolis peace
initiative] is part of that price, Israel
has to do it for the United
States."

Zuckerman, a
recent past chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,
said he is pessimistic about the chances for peace between Israel and the
Palestinians but that Israel must make the effort because "it is the only
way to maintain whatever political support it has, especially in the United
States — but really, in the Western world."

He compared Israel
and her quest for peace to Sisyphus, the figure in Greek mythology who
repeatedly rolled a huge rock up a hill only to have it roll from his grasp
near the summit.

Zuckerman says U.S. policy toward Israel likely will change when a
new president takes office next year.

"It never
does stay the same — and it is often a surprise," he said. "But it is
my judgment that there are a whole variety of views of Israel."

If
Israel is a client state and the New Jewish elite is dominating American
culture and politics, American Zionists or more correctly those American
Zionists manipulating or dominating US ME policy call the shots in Israel
and not local Israeli politicians.

There
is another critical aspect to the flow of power. A segment of the American
Jewish community seems to increase its status, wealth and power through its Israel connection, which at the very least gives
this small but important well-connected group of American Jews a place on the
gravy train of unaccounted cash aid to Israel.

These
American Jews then use their increasing wealth to make sure that national
politicians, who support continuing and increasing aid to Israel,
are well funded during election campaigns. By careful working the Israel
lobby and media connections, this group of Zionists keeps American politicians
in a state of dependency on Jewish contributions and in a state of fear of
campaign swift-boating.

In
effect American national politicians with the exception of Ron Paul are clients
of powerful Jewish Zionist elite. In other words, the State of Israel may be a
client state of America, but
America
is a client state of the American Jewish Zionist elite, which is probably in
the process of establishing itself as the permanent national "meritocratic"
elite.

[Is
it surprising that a vocal Zionist like Kondracke and Commentary, which until recently was the
flagship national publication of the American Jewish Committee have
systematically attacked affirmative action?]

While
the American public has not fully comprehended the nature of power relations,
Israeli leaders do, and the American Zionist elite calls all shots on issues of
importance to the American elite from "Who is a Jew" to whether the USA should attack Iraq
or Iran
first.

The
alliance between Israel and
the US
states is in the process of creating an internal American caste system that
will be dominated by a small class of hyper-wealthy Zionists. With the sort of
permanent war that has been envisioned since the beginning of the twentieth
century by a segment of the Zionist elite under the influence of Sorel and with
the application of the Friedmanite Shock Doctrine as described by Naomi Klein,
this caste system will spread globally. (See The Shock Doctrine: The
Rise of Disaster Capitalism,[56] by Naomi Klein.)

The Israeli economy or more properly a small segment of
hyper-wealthy Israeli Jews linked by family and business relations to the
dominant US Zionist elite is thriving as the US
economy is tanking and Iraq
is being ground down. It is the outcome of which leading Zionists dreamed
in the twenties, and it has a high probability of spreading from the ME
throughout the Muslim world to South America,
and to parts of the former Eastern block.

The
Kremlin, which has never had much tolerance for internal competing power
centers or external powers mucking in its backyard, saw danger in the
extension of a transnational hyper-wealthy Zionist political elite to Russia and has taken preventive action against
Jewish oligarchs within the territories of the former Soviet
Union. It was stunning how quickly Jewish and Friedmanite groups
rushed to support Mikhail Khodorkovski in his power struggle with the Russian
government.

Among
religious, leftist, and right wing ethnic Ashkenazim there has long been a
current of thought that Jews are safest in alliance (or better in dominating)
an undemocratic government.[v]
Thanks to the Patriot act and other actions of the Bush administration, the
undemocratic Zionist future is coming into being right before our eyes, and
McCain looks like the most likely of current present candidates to bring about
the fulfillment of the ultimate globalized Zionist dystopia, but Zionists
throughout the political system are poised to influence any other possible
victor except Ron Paul, whom Zionist facilitators and gate-keepers in the US
media are trying to starve of media attention.

Abolishing
Israel
and eradicating Zionism would not eliminate the exploitive tendencies of
globalization but would destroy the focal point of the forces that are aiming
for the worst of all globalized futures.

Even
though Professors Mearsheimer and Walt barely discussed economics and cash flow
issues in their book, no other aspect of Zionist movement in the US is
more important in understanding how it wins politically or how it can
lose.

Today,
individual contributions is far less important to day to day Israel lobbying
and advocacy, which often piggyback on funded, endowed, or profitable groups
generally within or associated with the organized Jewish community. As has
already mentioned, Martin Peretz, as a director of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research[57]
has managed to transform this non-Zionist institution into an organ of Israel
advocacy and Zionist defense. The latest YIVO bulletin includes a full-page
denunciation The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.[58] (See Making
YIVO a Zionist Organization.[59])
Peretz has managed to leverage a rather small contribution to YIVO to get the
benefits of both YIVO resources and prestige.

Nowadays,
many official Zionist institutions themselves have endowments while Israel
Advocacy includes its own independent profit centers in film-making and conference
production, which is an industry in which Sheldon Adelson, who is an important
Zionist donor has made billions of dollars. The big Zionist donors tend to
start and fund new projects. These donors often do their own R&D or
marketing analysis. Many such projects are openly publicized like The
Big Ideas Series: Introducing 10 Proposals for Jewish Communal Innovation « The
New Jew: Blogging Jewish Philanthropy[60]
from Charles Bronfman. The New Jewish Elite has no need for secrecy in its
plans to manipulate the American mainstream.

Zionist
scare-mongering has also landed lucrative government and private contracts for
Zionist terror-study groups like the Investigative Project and the
SITE Institute while government grants to increase security seem to go
disproportionately to Jewish groups.

While
Jewish organizations may be somewhat more effective at grant writing,
government approving officials are often Jewish officials, who are constantly
receiving literature and indoctrination that comes from the organized
Jewish community and that identifies numerous individuals and groups
threatening Jews.

The
Aliyah Scam, which has often been funded by the US
government in many ways, has brought a tremendous amount of money into the
Jewish community, and a good portion of such money is then put into Israel
advocacy. (See Scamming
Americans Robbing Palestinians.[64])

Israel itself is a profit
center for Israel
advocacy, which receives a tremendous amount of funding from real-estate
dealing and from the tourist industry. Conquering the OccupiedTerritories
in the 1967 war proved a boon to tourism because of the important holy sites
that they contain and whose control the Israeli government would never concede
to any sort of Palestinian authority no matter how servile.

Not
only does American aid to Israel come
back to the US via a web of
family and business connections, but US
aid also goes to subsidize Israeli corporations, which compete with
American firms and even create American subsidiaries or even relocate
to the USA.
The portion of US aid that
must be spent in the USA can
then be spent in corporations that are for all intents and purposes
Israeli and whose personnel are fully aware that they must contribute to
political candidates that will support increasing funding of Israel.

The
State of Israel has consequentially become involved in startup funding and in
picking winners among new American corporations through American and
Israeli venture capital funds that are directly or indirectly connected to the
Israeli government.

This
activity is not new for the Israeli government. The Israeli government has been
involved assuring the success of the right people in the American entertainment
and news industry since the 1950s. Golan Globus is a prominent example, and
Haim Saban is at least in part an Israeli government creation.

The
Zionist movement assumed from its earliest phases that it would be dependent on
wealthy and influential Jews in the Diaspora. Members of the Counsinhood
of Britain's wealthiest Jews probably paid for the Balfour Declaration. After
the propaganda reverses of the first Intifada, the need for an even wealthier and
more influential class of Jewish Zionists in the USA became obvious.

[In
this strategic framework, the Zionist movement also depends on Jews, who are
not necessarily wealthy but are in critical positions to serve the Zionist
movement especially in intelligence or logistics matters. Such individuals are
today called saya`nim. The spy Jonathan Pollard is a particularly egregious
saya`an, who was caught. [I have expanded the meaning of the term in this
document to include Jewish stealth helpers in Israel Lobbying efforts.]

In
addition to saya`nim, Zionists have often used Shabbesgoyim like Orde Wingate
during the pre-State period or more recently John McCain III and his father
Admiral John McCain, Jr., who absolved Israel of blame in the attack on the USS
Liberty. (See Money
Jews, Brain Jews, Politics.[65])
The Zionist movement has tended to recruit and reward Shabbesgoyim in families.
New York Zionist campaign contributions have rewarded John
McCain throughout his political career. Today McCain represents the
Neoconservative Friedmanite position in Republican politics without — until
recently — a lot of the social conservative baggage to which many American Jews
and Friedmanites object.]

Zionist
connections in the investment banking industry led to earlier IPOs in the 90s
with little or no evidence of profitability. Subprime mortgages were a similar
class of dubious investments, whose true nature was obscured in CDOs (collateralized
debt obligations), and the valuation of Google and similar companies like
Facebook has similar dubious characteristic. Some serious forensic analysis and
financial analysis is needed to understand these economic developments, but the
end result has been very clear in the development of a new class of
superwealthy that is mostly Jewish and willing to put a lot of money into Israel advocacy and into influencing the US
government.

While
many members of this New Jewish Elite would reflexively put money into Israel because of long Zionist indoctrination,
they also need Israel as a
means to hide their wealth because Israel
has a level of economic transparency and corruption comparable to Italy or Egypt. The Bar-Lev line in Tel Aviv
is an early indicator of the degree of embezzlement and sweetheart deals in
Israeli economics and politics. Israelis have long made a lot of money in
providing money laundering and other transaction hiding services both to Jews
and non-Jews. Obviously, all parties in this sort of business have an interest
in preserving the State of Israel to make sure that this sort business
continues.

Post-9/11
Islamophobic scare-mongering as well as the Iraqi occupation has created a
growth industry in hardware and software for security, control, and
checkpoints. This industry understands that its profitability depends on
international policies that maintain conflict through unconditional
support of Zionism.

The
American public constitutes a complex market than can be segmented in many
ways, the most obvious division being Jewish versus non-Jewish. A functional
organization specializing in memorializing (generally exaggerated) non-Jewish
barbarism towards Jews may not be particularly useful in inspiring non-Jewish
support for Israel
except perhaps in guilt-based projects.

Israel
Lobbying can count on a wide range of functional organizations including:

JCCs/Jewish Federations

RAC, UAHC (clerical
organizations)

JCRC/JCPA (local community
relations organizations)

AJCongress, AJCommittee, ADL
(Jewish defense organizations) — the AJCongress historically was closer to
the Jewish labor movement than the other two groups.

Jewish Labor Organizations —
probably not as important as in the past, but the UFT and AFT are still
very Jewish while the NEA has large Jewish membership.

[This project is only partly Zionist, for it serves to prevent rational
discussion of the Holoexaleipsis (the Nakba)
and of Jewish involvement in Soviet mass murder, ethnic cleansing and
genocide. (See Holoexaleipsis, Holocaust, Holosphage and Holodomor.[72])
The establishment of the United
StatesHolocaustMemorialMuseum
became a priority when American researchers began to obtain access to
Soviet and Eastern European archival records.]

Ongoing cooperation with
official Israeli attempts to influence or to manipulate American local and
national politics

Indoctrinating Christians and
part-Jews to support Israel

Manipulating Europeans
(bringing Merkel and Sarkozy to power and extending influence in the UK)

Terror in the
Night: The Klan's Campaign Against the Jews,[78]by Jack Nelson suggests that
the organized Jewish community opportunistically used Jewish radicals to
create conditions to scare up money from wealthy Jews and to manipulate
the US government and law enforcement to do its bidding and eventually
possibly to commit extra-judicial murder in response to a 1966 synagogue
bombing. The skill set that the organized Jewish community developed in
such efforts later proved extremely helpful in shutting down Arab and Muslim
charities and think tanks.]

Arabophobia &
Islamophobia with the Islamofascism smear — the Islamofascist
menace of the War on Terror is very important because justifying the
alliance with Israel
is much more difficult without the Cold War

Too
many (often Jewish) pseudo-scholars are babbling ignorantly about taqiyya
(prudence), which is a permissible form of dissimulation in certain life
threatening situations according to certain Shiite jurists. The concept
has an exact counterpart in the thinking of the Rambam (Moses Maimonides
or Musa bin Maimun, see his letter on martyrdom/forced apostasy,
whose original Arabic uses the word taqiyya to describe exactly the
same form of deception permitted to Jews subjected to certain forms of
mortal danger).

The concept of taqiyya also
has a very close analogue in Roman Catholic ethics. The accusation that
Muslims practice taqiyya to justify lying to non-Muslims is
essentially equivalent to the common anti-Semitic slander that asserts
that Jews never keep their contracts with non-Jews because the Kol
Nidrei prayer, which is part of the ceremony of Yom Kippur (Day of
Atonement), nullifies all such agreements.

Articles
like Alain Besançon's "What kind of religion is Islam?," Which
appeared in the May 2004 issue of Commentary, argue for a
fundamental opposition between Islam and Judeochristianity. Such scholarly
and non-scholarly literature represents a phenomenon essentially identical
to the extensive 19th and 20th century literature that claims an
unbridgeable gulf exists between Judaism and Christianity (Judentum und
Christentum or sometimes Judentum und Deutschtum) in order to
assert that Muslims today or Jews then are/were fundamentally alien to
mainstream western culture and must be removed. (See Linguistics,
Islam and the Beatitudes[88]for a much less sinister hypothesis of the relationshipsamong Christianity, Judaism,
and Islam.)

There
are many more similarities between Islamophobic and anti-Semitic
politics. Stab in the back accusations toward progressive Americans, Arab
Americans, and Muslim Americans will not be far behind.

The
International Hillel Society, the American Jewish Committee, AIPAC and JINSA (a
think tank) frequently mail Islamophobic and Arabophobic literature to scare-monger
against targeted Arab and Muslim individuals and groups. Because the mailing
lists of Jewish organizations typically include important people in government,
the news media and legal professions, continuous low-level defamation tends to
create conditions for the effectively disenfranchisement of Arab and Muslim
Americans in ways strongly reminiscent of the treatment that African Americans
suffered post-Reconstruction until some civil rights activism began to produce
results.

Ongoing
Zionist indoctrination of the American public has produced a Zionist web of
influence, conditioned thinking and reflexive behavior that is breath-taking in
its pervasiveness.

Even
without the presence of media gatekeepers and facilitators, journalists in
print, broadcast and cable media almost invariably misrepresent relevant Middle
Eastern or Eastern European current events or history. There is
little reluctance to turn Zionist or IDF press releases into news
reports with no qualifications.

American
news organizations almost invariably misquote and mistranslate Iranian
President Ahmedinejad, and America media use tendentious Zionist
language like the "right to self-defense," "Muslim
extremism," and "Arab intransigence" while almost never
conceding a similar right of Palestinian or Arab self-defense or addressing
issues of Jewish racism, extremism or fanaticism. During the recent Lebanon
war, the American media with rare exceptions took the Israeli point of
view.

Only
recently have American media begun to concede the role of Russian Jews in the
Russian Revolution and the murder of the Czar's family. While scholarly
journals discuss the Jewish role in the Soviet security apparatus before the
end of WW2, no inkling of the Soviet Jewish role in mass murder, ethnic
cleansing and genocide is allowed to reach the general public. Such facts would
interfere with the Zionist legitimization narrative which requires European
Jews to be innocent powerless victims of the German Nazis, and reasonable
people would drawn the obvious analogy between Soviet Ashkenazi and Zionist
Ashkenazi ethnic cleansing or genocidalism.

Only
occasionally does accurate depiction of Zionist ethnic cleansing in 1947-8 ever
reach the American public, and descriptions of the start of the 1967 war — even
on NPR — still include descriptions of the movement
("barreling") of Egyptian tanks through Sinai to attack Israel.

Roman
Catholics according to statistical analysis are less sympathetic. It is
intriguing that practically every time the Boston Globe runs a story that features a Catholic cleric
expressing a criticism of Israel, within approximately a week, it also runs a
story about a Catholic cleric sex scandal sometimes featuring events from as
much as 25 years ago as if to provide some crude sort of "balance"
that even CAMERA and HonestReporting do not advocate. It is an
often-unconscious behavior more often associated with an angry ethnic
press, and it may be significant

that the BostonGlobe Editorial Board
includes Lawrence Harmon, who was editor at the BostonJewish Advocate, and

that paid entry level newspaper
jobs in the USA nowadays
seem to be found mostly at the ethnic Jewish press.

The
BostonGlobe does not seem particularly different
from other important newspapers.

Other
content in the US
shows similar tendencies. One expects the film or novel Exodus to demonize Palestinians, but movies[89]
like Bright Lights, BigCity,
Time After Time, and Oh God,
You Devil! do as well.

Vincent
Brook discusses Jews on TV in Something Ain't Kosher Here, The Rise of the
"Jewish" Sitcom.[90]
He correctly identifies some aspects of trends in Jewish representations, but
he misses the real story in which early Jewish trends conformed to the project
of assimilating Jews to American society and making non-Jews comfortable with
Jewish neighbors. Gradually, the TV sitcoms switch first to the project of
assimilating non-Jewish society to various Jewish (really ethnic
Ashkenazi) social-cultural norms like female dominance in relationships,
female breadwinners, early sexual initiation, sexual ambiguity and serial
polygamy and then to the project of creating non-Jewish comfort with the
blending of Jews into the dominant elite. Because the Hollywood Crowd are
subjected to the same ongoing Israel advocacy activities as other Americans,
the writers for the most post incorporate the State of Israel into
everyday American culture and American civic religion as part of the scripts
and thereby reinforce ongoing Israel advocacy projects.

American
Jews reinforce the lessons of Israel education for themselves with a whole
class of Israel or Jewish oriented novels (written by authors like Naomi Ragen,
Herman Wouk, Leon Uris, Meyer Levin, and Elspeth Baker), comic books, or
other literature, where one expects to find Zionist or Jewish prejudices,
but another possibly larger class of writing responding to Zionist
indoctrination contains all sorts of subliminal Israel advocacy, sliming
of Palestinians, Arabophobia or Islamophobia.

Paul
Anderson provides a fairly typical and subtle example of subliminal Zionist propaganda in
The High Crusade, which is a
science fiction novel that reinforces the inevitability of an Israeli Imperium
on Earth. Here is a typical example from Keith Laumer’s 1964 science fiction
novel, entitled A Plague of Demons (pp 127-128 in the 1965 Pocket Books
version, approximately p. 76 in the online RFT version). (See A
Plague of Demons.[91])The book connects the State of Israel with
the American icon Benjamin Franklin.

"To monitor trends in the Basic Survival Factors, and to take such
steps as may be required to maintain a favorable societal survival ratio."

"I never heard of them. How long have they been operating?"

"Two hundred and seventy-one years."

"My God! Who started it?"

"The original Committee included Benjamin
Franklin, George Loffitt, Danilo Moncredi, and Cyril St. Claire."

…

"That's that," I said. "Tell me more about this Ultimax
Group. What's it been doing these past couple of hundred years?"

"It contributed materially to the success of the American War of
Independence, the defeat of the Napoleonic Empire, the consolidation of the
Italian and German nations, the emergence of Nippon, the defeat of the Central
Powers in the First Engagement of the European War, and of the Axis Powers in
the Second Engagement, and the establishment of the
State of Israel. It supported the space effort . . ."

I was beginning to feel a little ragged
now; the first fine glow was fading. I listened to the voice for another
half-hour, while it told me all about the little-known facts of history; then I
dismissed it and took another nap.

The
comic book Stormwatch: Team Achilles
like many others emphasized the categorical and moral imperative to do anything
and everything to wage the War on Terror according to Israeli or
Neoconservative principles.

At
this point the Zionist equation of Arabs or Muslims with terrorists is so
embedded in popular culture that people with no connection to the American
Jewish community see terrorist financing in Arab or Muslim investments in
American companies and denounce innocuous companies like Ptech, Dubai
Portsworld or Arab financed investment fund management companies.

Pro-Israel
vulture capitalists in media benefit from a similar phenomenon. As soon as
potential advertisers learn that a pro-Israel investor has acquired a
newspaper, their marketers discover a need to place adds to generate good will
or for some other purpose. Eventually the newspaper enters the black. The
vulture capitalist cashes in. New investors, who are perhaps not so pro-Israel,
may lose revenue especially if editorial or Middle East
coverage changes. The newspaper enters the red, and the vulture cycle can continue
a few more times until Murdoch or some similar investor like CanWest
incorporates it into an almost certainly pro-Israel media empire.

The
changes that Israel lobbying
and advocacy projects have introduced into American society are devastating as
Zionists have attempted to control American discourse and have warped economic
relations because the USA
and Arab or Muslim countries.

US
political debate is being reduced either to arguments whether Muslim Americans
show loyalty by taking an oath of office on the Quran as happened in the case
of Ken Ellison or to tests of loyalty Israel as happened in the cases of
Findley, McKinney and Percy.

Through
the Israel
on Campus Coalition, the Israeli Consulates and Embassy are orchestrating
censorship campaigns throughout American universities often with the
aid of freelancers like former Harvard President Lawrence Summers. (See Boycotts
and Priniples of Academia.[95])

The
same groups and individuals are trying to enforce indoctrination of American students
with Zionist mythology from kindergarten through university level by means
of Holocaust Education programs generally developed in Israel.

The
hyper-wealthy Zionist elite is trying to create Israel Studies programs in
which only Zionistically correct scholars will teach while stealth and overt
Israel advocacy groups and individuals attempt to drive any scholars critical
of Zionism from American education. (See Jacob
Lassner and Nadia Abu el Haj.[96])

The attempt to prevent Arab and Muslim Americans from
working at universities and other educational institutions looks like a form of
conspiracy against rights. As Arabs and Muslims become a larger part of the
American population, Israel Lobbying and Advocacy groups and individuals like
the David Project or Joe Kaufman (Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the
founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative) are so
desperate to prevent any rational discussion of the conflict over Palestine
that they have engaged in similar conspiracies against rights both

·to prevent American Muslims from freely assembling to practice
their religion and also

The
standard modus operandi of
conspirators has involved scare mongering and defamation, which has long been a
specialty of Abraham Foxman and the ADL as well as of David Harris
and the American Jewish Committee. These organizations and more specialized
Israel Lobbying organizations like the Genocide Information Network are afraid
of losing control of genocide discourse for fear that Americans might realize
as a result of efforts like the Somerville Divestment Project that the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine, which is the Nakba
or the Holoexaleipsis (the Great Erasure), is a unique and perhaps the
archetypal genocide. If such a realization became common among
Americans, it would undermine US
support for Israel.
Campaigns like the ADL's "No Place for Hate" and attempts to thwart
recognition of the Armenian Genocide make rational discussion of genocide in America
practically impossible. (See More Jewish Genocide Denial.[100])

Altogether
Israel Lobbying efforts are grinding down American Constitutional rights and
Israelizing society to the point where the American political system is under
attack by a wide-ranging seditious conspiracy, and the side-effect of
Islamophobic and Arabophobic incitement against Arab or Muslim investments or
university contributions or charitable donations, is discouraging the flow of
capital from Saudia and the Gulf when the US economy most desperately needs
such liquidity.

Even
if American gets over the current economic crisis, the alliance with Israel at this point has probably cost every
current US
taxpayer at least $10,000.00, and the costs at this point are rising at least
geometrically thanks to Neocon-orchestrated policies.

Pointing
out the cost of Israel to
each and every American is a good starting point to counteract Israel
lobbying and advocacy.

The
Zionism of Christian evangelical fundamentalists is part of generational
program of Jabotinskians but is not particularly deep. Obviously, Rapturists do
not care much about the cost of Israel to America, but Christian Zionism can be
fought by scriptural disputation, by questioning the patriotism of
its leaders and by exposing surreptitious Jewish funding and
organizing. (See Linguistics, Islam and the Beatitudes[101]
and Islamic Marcionism in Malaysia.[102])

In
other areas Israel advocates have had so much success because in today's
America Jews play by a set of rules completely different from all other
Americans, and even not particularly Zionist Jews have no real incentive to
challenge the system, when renders them

Moral
Arbiters,

Major players
in a dramatic narrative of national rebirth,

Beneficiaries
of programs like Taglit (Birthright
Israel[103]),
Jewish networks in academia, the professions and politics,

At
the college level, the International Hillel Society acts like a
junior auxiliary to the KKK by running racist programs
like Taglit/Birthright Israel and by hosting extremist speakers that
incite murder and genocide against Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims or deny
that they are human.

Jewish
organizations, no matter how much they campaign against laws and candidates,
get a completely pass of the rules and regulations of 501(c)(3) organizations.
The tax fraud probably reaches tens of billions of dollars at this point.

Established
in 1989, The Wexner Israel Fellowship Program represents a unique and important
partnership between The Wexner Foundation and HarvardUniversity's
John F. Kennedy School of Government.[108]
Each year, up to ten outstanding Israeli public officials are funded to pursue
a Master Degree in Public Administration at the KennedySchool
and to participate in a set of leadership institutes sponsored by the
Foundation itself. The goal of the program is to provide Israel's next generation of public leaders with
advanced training in public management and leadership development, thus
enhancing the quality of democracy and the institutional vitality of Israel's
public sector. Wexner Israel
fellows find themselves at the hub of both the university-wide program in
public policy and the KennedySchool's faculty,
curriculum, students, and research centers. Consequently, they encounter a rich
environment conducive to reflection and dialogue about Israel's policy challenges and the
diverse leadership strategies that could address those challenges. Wexner
Israel Fellows are awarded a Mid-Career Master in Public Administration
(MC/MPA) upon successful completion of the academic year.

As
is frequently pointed out in the Hebrew press, the Israeli public sector
is highly discriminatory against non-Jews. This fellowship lets the racism of
Israeli society exclude non-Jews (in 19 years only two non-Jews have
participated even though depending on how one counts somewhere between 20-30%
of Israeli citizens are non-Jews. Fellowship meetings are held at the Harvard
Hillel. Fellows take part in programs at synagogues. It does not provide a
particularly friendly environment to Israeli Palestinians with any sort of
self-esteem, and one must wonder whether exclusion of residents of the OccupiedTerritories is really legitimate after
60 years of racist Jewish domination.

Obviously,
Harvard is sponsoring a racist Jewish fellowship. The fellowship documents at
the KSG websites indicate that fellows will establish personal relationships
with current or future US
government officials so that 10 to 15 years in the future, the decisions of US
bureaucrats and leaders will be tainted by personal issues (Wexner's unstated
goal).

This
program should put HarvardUniversity's status as a
tax-deductible 501(c)(3) institution in jeopardy. Why should Harvard be allowed
to engage in racist practices that forced BobJonesUniversity to lose its 501(c)(3) status?
The program has run for 19 years, and one must wonder how many American
universities are similarly sponsoring Jewish racism.[vi]

The
Jack Abramoff case indicates that many SEC, FEC, and terrorism related
violations are very much Israel-related; yet, according to newspaper
reports no investigators are looking into aspect of ongoing criminality.
It looks like US
government officials are engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice or some
other similar violation. There are major equal protection issues in the ongoing
government persecution of Muslim charities without comparable investigation of
Jewish charities that are supporting Zionist terrorism, ethnic cleansing,
crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The US
government also appears to have no interest in prosecuting violations against
rights when the victims are Muslim communities that want to build Mosques or
are Arab and Muslim American university professors or Arab school principals.

Special
investigations - since its creation in 1979, the Office of Special
Investigations has been responsible for detecting, investigating, and taking
legal action to denaturalize and/or deport persons who took part in
Nazi-sponsored acts of persecution committed abroad during the period 1933-45
and, since
December 2004, also for detecting, investigating, and taking legal action to
denaturalize persons who participated abroad in acts of genocide or in acts of
torture or extrajudicial killings committed under color of foreign law.

As
far as I know the OSI has investigated neither for Jews involved in
Soviet torture, extrajudicial killings, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, or
genocide nor for Jews involved in revenge killings or torture
after the defeat of Nazi Germany nor for Jews involved in pre-state Zionist or
Israeli torture, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, genocide, or extra-judicial
killings.[vii]
Yet both Polish and also Lithuanian prosecutors have indicted or
investigated Israeli Jews for such crimes. (See Yom
Kippur and Ashkenazi Genocidalism[110] for discussion of
a Lithuanian case.)

Is
there some sort of equal protection violation in the possibly selective
prosecution of someone like Zajanckauskas

...would
make him the oldest person ever deported as a result of an investigation by the
Justice Department's OfficeofSpecialInvestigations.
To OSI officials, this is a story of justice served, a textbook case of a Nazi
collaborator who managed...

According Justice Department and Homeland
Security officials, Paul Henss, an 85-year-old German citizen living in GwinnettCounty,
guarded prisoners "at the notorious Dachau
and Buchenwald Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany."

According
to Wikipedia, Congressman Rahm Emanuel's father, the Jerusalem-born
pediatrician Benjamin M. Emanuel, was a member of the Irgun, a Zionist
paramilitary terrorist organization that committed mass murder, ethnic
cleansing, genocide, terrorism, and extra-judicial killings. So far OSI has
undertaken neither investigation nor legal action against either Benjamin Emanuel
or the multitudes of similar Zionist or Soviet Ashkenazi immigrants with
similar criminal backgrounds.

Does
the OSI only prosecute non-Jews? Can non-Jewish Eastern Europeans or
Palestinians receive any justice from the US DOJ?

Neutralizing
Israel lobbying and advocacy
groups will be extremely difficult without a push for the US government to enforce laws
equally for Jews and non-Jews. Then once a good part of the American public
realizes that Israel is
a terror state, the USA will
be forced to apply anti-terror laws apply and seize assets of organized Jewish
community along with those of Zionist billionaires as terrorism supporters
just as Islamic charities have been stripped of their funds.

•Until the US government begins to enforce laws equitably,
activists will have to research real estate transactions[viii]
and investigate who is paying for Israel advocacy programs.

They
will have to put together a who’s who of Zionist subversion in the USA.

To
change the consciousness of Americans, activists must fight American Holocaust
religion and work for recognition

that the mass murders of Jews
during WW2 were not exceptional or unique,

that Palestinians, Armenians,
Balkan Muslims, and Circassians have all been genocided from the
nineteenth through the twentieth century and

that Soviet Jews were up to the
eyeballs in mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide long before German
Nazis, Eastern Europeans, and liberated Soviet nationalities began to kill
Jews systematically out of fear and hatred resulting from the Jewish role
in the Soviet Union.

Activists will have to challenge American Jews
socially at interfaith activities, community events and elsewhere. They must
demand clarification of Jewish loyalties and force Jewish leaders to
acknowledge

that Americans are not obligated to support Israel
and

that hating Jews for what they do (unlike
hating Jews for being Jews) is not anti-Semitism.

Activists need to make effort to
counter Israel advocacy
and Holocaust studies at the high school and even grammar school
levels. They need to work for coordination among anti-Zionist
Arab American, Muslim American, genuinely anti-Israel Jewish American,
conservative, liberal, and other religious (especially Catholic) groups.

Unless they are neutralized, Israel
lobbying groups, Israel
advocates, Zionists, Neoconservatives, and Friedmanites will steal America
and effectively abolish the Constitution in all but name to create a society of
servitude for all Americans except for those belonging to the
hyper-wealthy transnational Zionist political elite.

Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society

What the Israel Lobby Really IsHow It Hurts the USA

What to Do About It

A Working Paper

Part II: The Genesis, Development and Future of the Lobby
or
Accidental Empire

I have met John Brady Kiesling twice, once at Princeton and once at Harvard. The USA lost an able diplomat when he resigned from the
Foreign Service[115],
[ix]
on February 24, 2003 in order to express his opposition to the impending attack
on Iraq.
Despite his apparently increasing frustration, which in not a few cases seems
to related to the special relationship between the USA and the State of Israel,[x]
his book, entitled Diplomacy Lessons: Realism
for an Unloved Superpower[116] is
nothing if not diplomatic[xi]
in its attempt to analyze the American practice of diplomacy objectively and to
explain the logic of diplomacy for the world’s only superpower.

Some of his assessments require more justification than he
provides. On p. 140, Kiesling writes:

One of the worst political deformations of Muslim
elites, as of Greek elites until the 1990s, is the belief that unlimited
American power absolves everyone else of moral responsibility. Few Muslims
accept America’s legitimate
argument that peace and justice in the Middle East
depend first and foremost on the people who live there. America could have prevented Israel from colonizing the West
Bank, but it did not. The CIA is an allegedly all-knowing
intelligence service, so ignorance is no excuse. Therefore, America is an evil superpower, and
evil must be resisted.

While the State of Israel and Zionism have caused some major
political deformations of Muslim and Western elites, confused ideas about blame
and responsibility hardly make the top ten among intellectual contortions.
Kiesling’s position is forgivable but harder to defend after the destruction of
Iraq because correct
analysis of the real Middle East problem in
the proper context of US politics requires knowledge of Jewish and Zionist
politics beyond anything normally obtainable from academic studies in N.
American, in European, or in any university system in the world today.

Kiesling’s inaccurate description of Israel as “a vibrant
democracy” (p. 177) is excusable in a former student of the Classics and
archeology because resisting the effects of the Zionist effort to obscure the
true nature of the Israeli political system requires thorough familiarity with inter
bellum Eastern European formal democracies of the class to which the State
of Israel belongs.

Kiesling more than compensates for occasional questionable
assertions with his willingness to reevaluate long held opinions belied by
events. He confesses on pp. 107-108:

Most Greek bookstores carry Greek
translations of all the latest books by Noam Chomsky, an American intellectual
gifted at connecting all the dots of U.S. behavior into a tidy picture.
In 2001 I assured Mr. Tegopoulos, the publisher of Athens’ most popular leftist newspaper, that
his favorite American philosopher was clinically insane.” Chomsky, I said, had
deduced a vast, invisible mechanism of systematic U.S. oppression and exploitation,
one that was not true to human nature and could not have operated over decades
without becoming visible to its employees. I reassured Tegopoulos that the U.S.
foreign policy apparatus could not conspire its way effectively out of a paper
bag.

I feel more charitably disposed
toward Chomsky now. The Iraq War proved that the United
States does have a small group of extremely intelligent,
disciplined, highly competitive individuals competent enough to mobilize the U.S. bureaucracy around a single mission such as
regime change in Iraq.
Chomsky’s favorite conspirators, the former Troskyites turned neoconservatives,
might even have read Chomsky in their youth. Certainly they made the same
mistake he did. They confused mastery over the U.S.
bureaucratic system with U.S.
power to triumph over the real world.

I can empathize. I used to be highly sympathetic both to the
American Jewish community and also to the State of Israel until Israeli
behavior in the OccupiedTerritories as well as the policies of the second
Bush administration forced me to reevaluate my original assumptions and to
study issues relating to the Middle East in more
detail.

Just as Chomsky would probably criticize Kiesling’s apparent
belief in a well-defined objective US
national interest, I have to criticize Chomsky’s analysis of the relationship
between the United States
and the State of Israel as well as common assumptions that Americans make about
Jews and Israel.

For the record, I knew a good number of the current
generation of Neocons in their youth at Harvard and elsewhere, and I have to
laugh at the attempt to identify them or the previous generation with
Trotskyitism or Schachtmanism although I will concede that Leon Trotsky and
Vladimir Jabotinsky are rather similar[xii]
and that in general the first generation of Trotskyites and Revisionist
Jabotinskian Zionists tend to come from the same rather narrow range of
backgrounds.

Yet, Kiesling’s resignation letter more than compensates for
some minor foibles in interpretation by posing a question that clarifies the
dilemma in the USA
and the world finds itself:

Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really
our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in
the name of a doomed status quo?

Zionism reached its final form in the late Czarist state and
imprinted on Russian imperialism as the normal behavior of a Great Power.
Neocons steeped in Zionist ideology and holding some of the most powerful
positions in the US
government have almost reflexively proposed policy in conformance with the
belief that the normal behavior of a Superpower like the USA must follow the example of the
imaginary brutality of the Czarist Empire of Zionist narrative.[xiv]

Americans should be feel reassured that there exist US
diplomats with the knowledge base to make the connection between Neocon foreign
policy and the Romanovs. They should be distressed that one such diplomat felt
compelled as a man of integrity[xv]
to resign from the Foreign Service in the lead-up to the Second Iraq War
despite the habits of two decades of loyal service to the USA. Because of such strength of
character, I dedicate The Israel Lobby and American Society to John
Brady Kiesling.

When Uri Avnery spoke upon receiving[120] the Lev
Kopelev prize with Sari Nusseibeh in Cologne,
Germany on
November 22, 2003,[xvi] he tried
to whitewash Zionism by joking:

What is a Zionist? A Jew who takes the money of a
second Jew in order to send a third Jew to Palestine.

This quip has appeared in discussions of Zionism for about
75 years (including recently in the Mondoweiss blog[121]) and
hides the facts by putting them in plain view with a sarcastic description that
can apply to the colonial office of any imperial state that uses some portion
of tax revenue to send settlers to live in a foreign colony. In other words,
the goal of Zionism was not so much the establishment of a settlement or state
in Palestine as
it was of creating an Empire. In the context of the last decades of the
nineteenth century, the idea was hardly unreasonable. The newly consolidated
German and Italian states felt cheated or left out and fairly quickly sought to
enhance their status, wealth and power by acquiring foreign colonies.In the 1880s Eastern European Jews
outnumbered Danes, who already had their own colonial Empire. While the Dutch built their physical countryside as they
became wealthier and more powerful through enlargement and exploitation of
their imperial possessions, Zionists never bothered with a physical territory
but expanded and elaborated the organizational capabilities of their virtual
colonial motherland as they became richer and more influential in parallel with
the development of the Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Because discussing a colonial motherland in connection
with Zionism seems oxymoronic by definition within the framework of Zionist
ideology and possibly because mainstream academics simply do not take Jewish
history and politics seriously enough, the development of this virtual state
structure has escaped the attention of all historians and political scientists
that have studied the history of Modern Israel and its relationship with the
USA. Professors John Mearsheimer and Walt use the term Israel lobby but explain:

As with other special interest
groups, the boundaries of the Israel
lobby cannot be identified precisely, and there will always be some borderline
individuals or organizations whose position is hard to classify. (Ibid,
p. 113.)

C. Wright Mills once wrote that the US
“power elite” ruled by denying it held power. The Zionist elite follows this
formula, but defends itself by accusing its adversaries of being “anti-Semites”
and pursuing retributive measures that would please former Senator Joseph
McCarthy. The Zionist power configuration (ZPC) cannot be understood merely as
the “Jewish Lobby” or even the AIPAC, as formidable as it is, with 150
full-time functionaries. The ZPC can best be understood as a complex network of
interrelated formal and informal groupings, operating at the international,
national, regional and local levels, and directly and systematically
subordinated to the State of Israel, its power holders and key decision
makers.” (p. 46.)

In some regards ZPC is better than Israel lobby, but Petras is incorrect
in claiming that the ZPC is “subordinated to the State of Israel, its power
holders and key decision makers.”

Neither of the two terms does justice to the history or
political economy of the Zionist virtual colonial motherland, which this document
names by combining combining Iud/aeus (Latin: Jew) with
Pol/onia.to create the term Judonia in order to emphasize the analogy with
the historical concept of Polonia during the time period when the Polish state
had ceased to exist.

Judonia’s leadership is unique among imperial governments,
for it has no need to compromise with or compensate for the exigencies of
ruling an actual physical nation-state.Because Judonia’s colonialism and imperialism function in particularly
pure forms, they would long ago have become the subjects of immense scholarly
inquiry if only mainstream historians and political scientists took Jewish
history and internal politics seriously.

The Jews of Commonwealth Poland (Rzeczpospolita Polska,
1505-1795) had lived in the center of a powerful state and constituted an
economic elite with easy access to the rulers. In partitioned Poland they were a disenfranchised
frustrated transnational elite of a vanished state. Without any relocation
whatsoever, the members of this elite now inhabited territories, far less
politically and economically significant, at the periphery of the Prussian,
Austrian and Russian empires. While on the whole Jewish income was higher than
that of their non-Jewish neighbors, it was nowhere near the levels to which
many Jews aspired and felt they could achieve if granted access to the central
imperial territories. Jews were subjected to various forms of exclusion and
discrimination in all three states, and they felt humiliated.

A typical Jewish intellectual harboring such feelings was
Peretz Smolenskin. He was a popular albeit not particularly successful writer.
He was ostensibly responding to the pogroms following the targeted
assassination of Czar Alexander II by a Jewish-led terror squad (see Followup
(II): Origins of Modern Jewry[125])
with the essay “Let us search our Ways”(1881):

To our shame and sorrow we must
admit that there is no peace and unity among us. We
were weak within ­— therefore our strength was little in the day of evil.
Would this have happened had we believed in our hearts that the ten million
Jewish souls belonged to one nation? Every person in his right senses would
reply: No! Why are we treated like this? Because we have sunk so low that our
self-respect has died – because we have come to like charity flung at us in
disgrace and contempt. (See The Zionist Idea, A Historical Analysis and Reader[126] by Arthur
Hertzberg, p. 150.)

Just
as the founders of the Dutch or Honorable (British) East India Companies had no
inkling that they were founding the Dutch and British Empires (as they were
experimenting with the new financial instrument of the joint-stock
corporation), Smolenskin shows no obvious consciousness of proposing an Empire
for Eastern European Jews as he identifies the territory, manpower, and resources
necessary to create a colony:

[English explorers] have
established that the [Land
of Israel] is very good
and that, if cultivated with skill and diligence, it could support fourteen
million people. Even if we assume some exaggeration (though in truth there is
none) and that there is room for only half that number, Eretz Israel can
nonetheless contain all those who might wish to take refuge there. Not all Jews
will go there — only those who are destitute or persecuted will look for a
place to which to emigrate. It would be enough if only one million of our
brethren would go, for it would be a relief both to them and to those remaining
in the lands of the dispersion. (Ibid, p. 152.)

Our Jewish philanthropists should therefore not
tarry, if they really want to help their less fortunate brethren. They should
hasten to buy land and let Jews settle on it to begin a new life. We can be
sure that money will not be lacking, if only men of sufficient vision can be
found to initiate this project in the right spirit, with a desire to help their
people. In all countries there exist such Jews, many more than we know of, who
strive to help their people with all their might and main. Only one thing is
lacking — a united purpose. As soon as we succeed in achieving unity for this
great work, fruition will not be long in coming. (Ibid, p. 153.)

Because of exclusion from governmental or professional
employment by law or prejudice, Smolenskin and similar underemployed Jewish
intellectuals were available as a pool of organizers for all sorts of
political, reformist or radical politics. Members of the then numerically
insignificant[xvii]
Zionist intelligentsia[xviii]
developing in the 1880s would eventually become the original bureaucracy as
well as the foreign and colonial office of Judonia that was coming into being.
Like any other colonial bureaucracy few seem to have ever had any intention of
relocating permanently to the Jewish settlement even if they publicly claimed
otherwise.

If Smolenskin and fellow early Zionists showed any
conscious realization that wealthy Western Jews had sufficient wealth in
aggregate to found a low-budget colonial empire that did not have to distract
itself with the maintenance of a physical colonial motherhood, they would count
as some of the most astute practical political thinkers of the nineteenth
century, but they like most political actors seem to have been sleepwalking
through history and could not come up with the right marketing gimmick to shake
money out of the pockets of western Jews.

Just as modern nations are imagined communities, modern
empires are exploitive hierarchies ruled by a modern nation that dominates
other national or population groups by means of force, various forms of
compulsion, deceit and self-deception. (See Facts
versus Delusions in Jewish History.[130])

Imperialism in the context of Zionism is unique and
therefore worthy of study because of the exceptional levels of associated
deceit and self-deception and because of the success of Zionists in
piggybacking on or co-opting the force and power of the UK, the USA and France[xix]
to defeat the native Palestinian and neighboring Arab populations.

The fundamental Zionist deceit and self-deception relates to
the Hebrew Bible or Christian Old Testament.

Despite Zionist propaganda and ethnic Ashkenazi conceit,
modern Jewry has no ancestral connection to ancient Israelite or Judahite
populations. The Pentateuch (Torah, תּוֹרָה) is the
founding story in a surviving remnant theology[xx]
elaborated in literature that eventually became the canonical prophetic and
hagiographic books of the Bible (Neviim, נביאים, and
Ketuvim, כתובים). The
Persian period Jerusalem elite used this material
both to justify its rule over the native population and also to legitimize the
status of the province of Yehud within the Persian Empire.
(See Historiography
of Pre-State Zionism.[131])

In The Bible and Colonialism:
A Moral Critique,[132]
Michael Prior describes in detail how modern Christian and Jewish groups have
used material from the Pentateuch in more recent forms of imperialism and
colonialism. The concept of the Covenant of Israel has proven at least as
efficacious as the sense imperial mission (or white man’s burden[xxi])
or the idea of mission civilatrice in creating the mindset of
domination.

Covenantal and dispensationalist ideas are most persuasive
to ignorant Christians and Jews, who have not read past the Pentateuch or who
have not understood the Covenantal logic that continues in operation to this
day.

Because of the spiritual failure of the Israelite,
Ephraimite and Judahite kingdoms, Israelites and their descendants are
forbidden from ever establishing an independent kingdom in the Land of Israel. The establishment Yehud as a
province of the Persian Empire was an
expression of God’s mercy of which the Persian Emperor Cyrus was the agent or
anointed messiah [Second Isaiah 45:1].

In this new religious political framework, the piety of the
host of Israel
was no longer contingent on a primitive barter or exchange, and the later
Biblical prophets exhorted the remnants of the House of Israel to serve God out
of love and gratitude.

Zionism represents a fundamental rejection of this Biblical
Theology that is intrinsic to modern Judaism and Christianity.

The most important secondary Zionist deceit and
self-deception relates to the Christian Bible, extra-biblical Jewish scripture
and Greco-Roman literature.

Despite propaganda and ethnic Ashkenazi conceit, modern
Jewry has practically no ancestral connection to Judeans of the Greco-Roman
period.

In reality Zionist propaganda reinterprets and distorts the
religious legacy that resulted from the following modifications or actions that
the Hasmoneans, the Herodians and their successors undertook for their own
political and economic purposes in association with their stewardship over
Second Temple Judaism.

Developments within Judaism over the next three centuries
are obscure, but the rising Khazar Empire needed a religion, a legal system,
and a commercial organization in order to trade Slavic slaves with the
Byzantine, Carolingian and Islamic Empires. There is evidence that Khazar
funding gave the Geonic formulation of Judaism significant advantage over
competing variants. In return the Geonim created a form of Judaism

that
fostered the development of an international Jewish legal and financial
system optimized for the high margin trade in Slavic slaves as well as
associated luxury commodities and

The internal Medieval Jewish legal, political,
economic system imposed a high degree of communal cohesiveness, provided
mechanisms for strong control of social deviance, and was generally harsher and
more coercive in its dealings with powerless non-Jews than with members of the
Jewish community. For example, Sefer haMitzvot of
Maimonides (twelfth century)[142]
identifies positive commands:

Modern Jewry inherited small but long lasting economic,
educational, and social organizational advantages as a legacy from the Khazars
and Medieval Judaism. In addition, Jews developed a tradition of employment in
professions associated with the Medieval Slave trade like medicine, banking,
tax farming and estate management while the mixed Slavo-Turkic, Balkan, and
Southern Russian population ruled by the Khazars survived the Empire’s demise
and eventually developed into the Eastern European Ashkenazi ethnic group. (See
How
to talk about Zionism, a new improved guide.[144])

Despite the popular depiction of Eastern European ethnic
Ashkenazi Jews as a poor oppressed population first of historic Poland and then
of the Austrian, German, and Russian Empires, the advantages bequeathed by
their Jewish forerunners made it possible for ethnic Ashkenazim to play a
critical economic role within the Polish state and function as native
collaborators within Austrian and German Poland. The Russian government had
less use for ethnic Ashkenazim but recognized their economic value despite
heavy ethnic Ashkenazi involvement in smuggling.

Ethnic Ashkenazim developed a sense of grievance as a
result of the Chmielnicki Rebellion, and this feeling grew with the Russian
Pogroms of 1881 and afterwards.

The Ukraine had come under Polish rule
in 1569 and had been subjected to a harsh policy of Polonization and
Catholicization: the Eastern Orthodox Church was suppressed and the Ukrainian
peasants enserfed to the Polish nobility. The rise of towns on the steppe where
Cossack horsemen once rode wild horses and the increasingly powerful economic
role of urban Jews mediating between the Polish nobility and the Ukrainian
peasants compounded the political and religiocultural tensions. Bogdan
Chmielnitsky (1593-1657), hetman of Zaporogian Cossacks, led a Cossak uprising
to liberate the Ukraine from
Poland.
Chmielnitsky agitated against Poles and Jews: “You know the wrongs done us by
the Poles and Yids, their leaseholders and beloved factors, the oppressions,
the evil deeds and the impoverishment, you know and you remember.”

Chmielnitsky did not succeed in liberating
the Ukraine, but in the subsequent decade of war and violence, interrupted only
by brief intervals of negotiations among the Poles, Russians, Swedes, and
Turks, the Cossacks with their murderous bands of peasants, called Haidamaks,
slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews, sacking and destroying hundreds of
Jewish communities. That was the beginning of a series of blood-drenched
encounters between Jews and Ukrainians that were to endure in Jewish historic
memory. About one-tenth of the Jewish population remained in the Polish
Ukraine, Volhynia, and Podolia. The other survivors emigrated into Lithuania, Poland proper, and to the Western
European countries. In 1654, Chmielnitsky accepted Moscow’s protection, and
finally in 1667, the Truce of Andrusovo split the Ukraine, with Kiev, its
cultural center, and the left bank of the Dnieper going to Russia, and the
right bank remaining with Poland.

In
Yiddish Civilisation: The
Rise and Fall of a Forgotten Nation[146] (pp. 235-6), Paul Kriwaczek provides a very different
perspective on the role of Jews in sixteenth and seventeenth century Ukraine, which was then part of Commonwealth Poland.
(Please not that it is probably too harsh on Polish nobles and too considerate
of wealthy Jewish estate managers.)

This
Yiddish takeover of the wild and lawless Ukraine's economy could be expected
to have involved much exploitation and corrupt abuse of monopoly. Jews tried
hard to keep such businesses as the collection of customs dues and taxes to
themselves. Surviving customs records from the 1580s are written in a mixture
of Yiddish and Hebrew. The historian Shimon Dubnow quotes a resolution passed
by the Jewish Lithuanian Council, the Vaad Medina Litoh, ruling body of the
Jewish estate: "We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the
operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is
a pivot on which everything turns, since thereby Jews may exert
control."

...

The alliance between ruthless Polish nobles and
insecure Yiddish frontiersmen proved dangerous and destructive. The Jews now
held a position that nothing in their background or religious law had properly
prepared them for. They had been placed in authority over another people, of
another social order, another culture and another religion, a people whom the
magnates, the Jews' masters, regarded as racially inferior and fair game for
callous exploitation. Tragically, shaking off the restraining influence of
wiser counsels of the West, the repeated warnings of the rabbis of metropolitan
Cracow, Posen and Lublin, the Yiddish businessmen who flocked
to the colony came to regard the peasantry in a similar light.

In some histories of the Chmielnicki Rebellion,
Chmielnicki offered ordinary Jews safe passage out of cities about to be
attacked, but they rejected it under the influence of a religious elite
co-opted by the wealthy merchants allied with the Polish gentry. In any case,
Dawidowicz makes ridiculous claims about Jewish casualties, which in the
soundest estimates probably number between 10-20,000. (Some scholars – usually
Ukrainian – put the number as low as 4,000.)

Despite the claims about the severity of
Czarist pogroms, the conscription crisis of 1850-4 probably represented the
worst period for Russian Jewry before WWI.

Not only did the Russian government
incorrectly conclude that the Jewish communities could supply more recruits,
but it levied fines well beyond the resources of communities to pay.

In 1854 when Czar Nicholas I finally realized
that the situation was intolerable, he abated both the fines and the levies of
conscripts.

While conditions for Russian Jewry came
nowhere near the persecution and oppression that Palestinians have suffered
since the creation of the State of Israel, by the death of Nicholas in 1855,
traditional Russian Jewish communal structures had shattered.

Although the autonomous Jewish community persisted
in fact as well as in law, it lost much of its former elan as the traditionalists and the enlightened, the rich
and the poor, all increasingly looked to new sources of allegiance,
organization, and power. [p. 186]

Fairly quickly, Russian Jewish thinking divided into
assimilationist, orthodox, Yiddishist, radical revolutionary, and Zionist
intellectual currents. While there were some hybrid groups, the Jewish
tendency to bind together in the face of common threats was severely weakened
by the end of Nicholas' reign.[xxiv]

After the police investigating the
assassination of Czar Alexander II by Narodnaya Volya (Народная
Воля, Popular Will) arrested the
Russian Jewish revolutionary Gessya Gelfman (Hessya Helfman) as one of the
plotters, awareness of increasing Jewish radicalism in the Russian Empire
created a reaction of hostility and violence.

The 1883 capture, arrest and trial of Narodnaya Volya
leader Vera Figner, who was also Jewish, created more anti-Jewish suspicions
and hostiliy, to which Russian Jews responded with both increasing radicalism
and also emigration.

Because the Czarist government viewed disorder and
unorganized violence as a threat to itself, its reaction to the pogroms tended
toward excessive brutality and probably caused more anti-Jewish hostility,
which in turn created more Jewish radicalism.

The Czarist government became even more suspicious
of non-Russians including (or sometimes especially) the most Russianized, who
were often Jewish. Exclusion of Russianized Czarist subjects from positions of
authority within the government increased revolutionary tendencies among all
non-Russians within the empire.[xxv]

Stanislawski points out on p. 7 that “a
patrimonial state such as Imperial Russia, discrimination was the rule rather
than the exception and hence entirely relative. He also claims (p. 5): “By the
time of Nicholas II, treatment of the Jews was indeed unique and anomalous.”

The meaning is unclear. By the time of
Nicholas II, the government was aware of a dangerous radical faction among the
Jewish population. Within the Czarist framework the normal Czarist response
would probably have involved internal exile, expulsion from the Empire as the
Circassians suffered during the 1850s and 1860 (see Slavery
and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East[149]
by Ehud R. Toledano) or something worse, but Russian Jews were too valuable,
and Jewish groups had the ability to put pressure on the Czarist government.

While the Russian government was improvising,
Jews like probably most Imperial subjects felt victimized, and such feelings
probably helped provide an alternative basis for Russian Jewish solidarity as
the traditional autonomous Jewish religious communal structure broke down.

The situation was extremely volatile, and despite
everything Russian Jews like practically all Jews throughout Europe had more
money, better health, more education, and more effective communal organizations
that the peoples among whom they lived. In the right (or better the wrong)
situation, the combination of anger and resources could occasion a tremendous
amount of harm.

While this sense of grievance could increase Russian or
Eastern European Jewish cohesiveness and possibly inspire short-term political
action, creating a Jewish settlement in Palestine
was a multigenerational effort requiring action by Jews outside of Eastern Europe.In
another time period religion could perhaps have inspired the necessary
long-term unity and focus, but traditional religion was breaking down
throughout European Jews in general while the process of ethnicization – still
continuing to this day – has become a mainstay of popular Jewish support of
Zionist imperialism.

Because the center of gravity for world Jewry from the
sixteenth century onward was Eastern Europea, the Eastern European process that
transformed Eastern European religion into confessionalism and then into ethnic
nationalism had reverberations throughout practically all Jewish communities
even though the changes were typically strongest in Eastern
Europe.

With the collapse of the messianic movements of Shabbetai
Tzvi and Jacob Frank during the slow disintegration of Commonwealth Poland,
many ideas of European Jewish mysticism cross over from learned religious
discourse into popular Jewish culture generally in a distorted or debased
sense. Galut or exile, which for the most part had served as an abstract
notion of deterritorialized Rabbinic Judaism to describe the alienation of man
from God, became a palpable aspect of Jewish life even though prayers like the
tenth benediction of the Amidah prayer refer not to the Medieval and Modern
Jewish Diaspora (tәfutzah) but to the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles
(galuyyot[eynu]).

As the Polish state slowly dissolved and Poland ceased to be
Poland any longer from the Jewish standpoint, ethnic Ashkenazim began to feel
that they were in exile in their Polish homeland without having relocated, and
they found it a lot easier to contemplate emigration to Western Europe, to the
Americas, to the Central Russian provinces or to Palestine. A similar feeling
probably facilitated the Greek Bulgarian Turkish population exchanges in the
aftermath of WW 1 as old imperial states were replaced by newer more ethnically
oriented states and traditional territories began to feel alien while new
ethnic centers exerted a pull on communities living outside the new boundaries.[xxvi]

Because Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish leaders assumed that
leaving homes and villages was similarly easy for all populations, they dreamed
especially during the 1930s but even to this day of reaching some sort of final
agreement with Palestinians by settling them in some other Arab country.

A lot of Jewish mystical ideas of the special nature of the
Jewish soul facilitated the development of racist ideas among Jewish
communities especially in Eastern and Central Europe.
This type of religion-inspired racism is not specific to Judaism and may
represent the influence of or a reaction to Christian belief that only
Christian souls are saved because the Sufi-influenced pre-Kabala mysticism of
Arab Jews had far different concerns (see The
Treatise of the Pool: al-Maqāla al-Ĥawđiyya[161] by
`Obadyāh Maimonides).The
Christian concept of salvation and its mystical ramifications have played a
major part in the development of European völkisch and color-based
racism.

If the position of Germany’s Jews was not perfect, it
was certainly bearable – at least for the well-to-do – and even quite hopeful
in the eyes of the intelligentsia. Intermarriage became common, increasing from
8.4 percent in 1901 to 29.86 percent in 1915. Felix Theilhaber, a Zionist
doctor in Munich,
hysterically warned in 1911 that intermarriage and sinking birthrates – the
result of modern women’s uppityness, he lamented – would bring about the
complete disappearance of German Jewry by 1950. According to Theilhaber,
marriage among Jews had in the past been a “national-religious” institution,
designed to “serve the preservation of the family and the nation”; now,
however, it was increasingly “based purely on erotic attraction,” as among
Gentiles. Theilhaber decried the recent decline of what he called “racial
consciousness” among Jews. Philosophies could be abjured at will, he announced.
“Blood” was more permanent.

Theilhaber traveled from one German Jewish community
to another speaking out against “racial mixing” through intermarriage. Kafka
attended a speech in which Theilhaber warned of the biological damage caused by
racial mixing: children of mixed marriages were likely to be decadent or
morally depraved, and they often ended up as the worst anti-Semites. However
preposterous, Theilhaber’s stereotypes must be read in historical context. The
vocabulary of sociobiology and “race” was then an integral part of civilized
public discourse. More remarkable was the lack of response to Theilhaber’s
tirades. Intermarriage continued to flourish. In Breslau, a less “multicultural”
city than Berlin,
intermarriage rose from 11 percent in 1890 to 52 percent during the First World
War, suggesting that integration was even more advanced in the provinces than
was commonly thought.

Despite Elon’s attempt to belittle the significance of Theilhaber’s
type of thinking among German Jews, such racism has persisted and expanded
among Jews. Theilhaber differs very little from Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse.

While the idea seems strange today, during the nineteenth
and the first decade of the twentieth century, various progressive leaders and
movements incorporated into their ideologies racist ideas very similar to those
of people like Theilhaber and Wisse.

In addition, some probably more specifically Jewish kabalistic concepts

of tikkun
olam (repairing the universe, תיקון
עולם)

by
reuniting the kәlippot
(shards, קליפות)
resulting from shәvirah
(shattering, שבירה) of
the sәfirot
(circles or emanations, רותספי)
arising from the zimzum (contraction, צמצום) of
the Divine

facilitated the transfer of Jewish allegiance from
traditional religious observance to new political movements

that
have often managed to maintain progressive credentials even into the
twentieth century[xxvii]
and

Rabbi Yisroel (Israel) ben Eliezer (רבי
ישראל בן
אליעזר, the Baal Shem Tov or Besht) in
Eastern Europe and Moses Mendelssohn in Germany are two contemporary early
reformers, who were both apparently inwardly directed.

The Besht founded the Hassidic
movement. The conflicts between the Hassidim and their opponents contributed to
the breakdown of Rabbinic authority in Eastern Europe.

While Mendelssohn’s proposed
reforms of aspects of Jewish religious practice and education were quite minor,
he provided the important example of a German Jew fully engaged in the larger
German society as a German and possibly created the model of a national German
for Protestants and Catholics as well as for Jews. By treating gentile
scholarship as important as Jewish learning, Mendelssohn’s efforts undermined
Rabbinic authority albeit unintentially.

Although Mendelssohn is
considered both the father of the Haskalah
(השכלה, Jewish Enlightenment) and of the Reform
movement, he was personally fully observant. The earliest phases of the Eastern
European Haskalah were probably true to Mendelssohn’s vision In contrast the
German Reform movement attempted to make fundamental changes in Jewish
Religion.

Mendelssohn’s successors
reformed Jewish education by deemphasizing the Talmud, and consequentially,
treated the Book of Leviticus as relatively unimportant even though and perhaps
because traditional Jewish education focused on this Biblical text as an
introduction to Talmud. Jewish education reformers brough Jewish Bible study
more into conformity with the developing German concept of a Prussian Israel
that served as the model for the Hohenzollern kaisers.

As in the
case of culling useful texts from the Talmud, the secular curriculum removed
portions dealing with rituals and ceremonies associated with religious worship.
Leviticus, a text that deals largely with the priestly code and rituals, was
thereby nearly excised from the curriculum. Secular schools retained only those
few sections that deal with celebrating the sabbatical and jubilee years and
similar topics that could be interpreted, by modern Israelis, as ethical
legislation protecting the rights of workers. The study of the Bible thereby
corresponded to that of the Talmud in which similar sections from the tractate
of civil jurisprudence were selected.

As Haskalah moved East, a
complex interaction developed among Hassidim, their opponents the Mitnagdim,
and Russian governmental incoherence, incompetence and brutality. Often the
Hassidim and the Mitnagdim banded together against the Maskilim (Enlighteners),
and Professor Stanislawski provides evidence that at least one important
Eastern Europe traditional religious leader, Yizhak ben Haim of Volozhin was
not unsympathetic to the early phase of Haskalah.

As the severely troubled Russian Empire
tried to reform itself, a subset of Russian Jews, influenced by the “Germans”
tried to bring reform to the whole Russian Jewish population (see Jewish,
Zionist War Against Salvation[168]) while
at the same time the Russian government attempted to impose its own form
of reform on its Jewish population generally on the basis of some severe
misconceptions.

By the beginning of the 1850s, therefore, the
new power of the maskilim was matched, for the first time, with the security of
numbers. From a handful of disjointed individuals clustered in tiny enclaves on
the borders of the Pale or in insulated anonymity in the largest cities, the
maskilim grew to a well-coordinated movement of several hundred adherents,
preaching their gospel to thousands of committed students throughout the [Jewish] Pale [of settlement].

From this new coherence and potency there
emerged a new self-consciousness, or rather, a manifest reaffirmation of
self-perception. As one of their most articulate spokesmen explained, even the
youngest maskilim now sensed their mission. Every student in the state schools

regarded himself as no less than a future
reformer, a new Mendelssohn, and therefore, in the quiet worked out a plan of
action which he jealously guarded from his friends. [They]
were thoroughly convinced that they were going to bring about a complete
revolution in the world view of the Jewish people, and they impatiently awaited
their moment of action. They were like military commanders standing at the
ready for the approaching enemy attack, waiting only for the moment when they
will be able to display the wonders of their courage and to distinguish
themselves for their fatherland [i.e., the
Russian Empire].

This new sense of
mission and power, this rejection of traditional society combined with a
dedication to its restructuring on a new basis, transformed the maskilim from
an amorphous set of intellectuals into a full-fledged intelligentsia. As Isaiah
Berlin has
taught, there is a fundamental difference between the concept of an
intelligentsia and the notion of intellectuals. The former

thought
of themselves as united by something more than mere interest in ideas; they
conceived of themselves as being a dedicated order, almost a secular
priesthood, devoted to the spreading of a specific attitude to life, something
like a gospel.

Thus, we can date
the emergence of a coherent Russian-Jewish intelligentsia to the latter part of
the rule of Nicholas I, in large part as a response to the stimulus provided by
the Russian government itself.

Not only was the emerging
intelligentsia a competitor to traditional Jewish scholarly and economic
communal elites, but in the provinces of Chernigov and New Russia, which were
only opened up to Jewish settlement in the late eighteenth century, there were
no traditional Jewish elites of any importance and the Russian government
relaxed restrictions on Jewish participation in the local government in order
to make relocation more attractive and to compensate for a dearth of persons
qualfied to be officials in the region. (See The
Jews of Odessa: A Cultural History, 1794-1881,[170]
by Steven J. Zipperstein.) As a result, internal and external pressures
conspired to evolve the Russian Jewish religious community into an ethnic and
even into a politically sophisticated ethno-national community albeit only in
the Russian Empire, which ruled over many ethnic and ethno-national groups in
various stages of development.

In Western Europe the emancipation of Jews contributed to
the breakdown of Jewish religious identity despite the best efforts of Modern
Orthodox leaders like Samson Raphael Hirsch of Frankfurt, who founded the
movement for Torah im Derech Eretz (Hebrew[171]
תורה עם דרך
ארץ - Torah with "the way of the land") in order to
combat Reform Judaism, secularizing assimilation, and conversion to
Christianity. His movement may have made it easier for German Jews like Martin
Buber to combine the most extreme sorts of German blood and soil nationalism
with immersion in neo-Hassidic mysticism as he did at the beginning of WWI.
(While he later renounced the German nationalism, Buber’s obsession with blood
in the racial sense persisted and played a role in his thinking throughout his
life.)

Martin Buber’s success in
introducinga sort of völkisch-oriented
Neo-Hassidic Zionism to German Jews may have resulted from the Ostjuden-ization
of Central and Western European Jews as Emancipation pulled Russian Jews
westward.

One does not write more illogically about the Ostjuden
than about the Westjuden; it is only that in the case of the Ostjuden
it all seems to come at once, but if one could conceive of the whole literature
about the Westjuden written – let’s say in the last twenty years, as
condensed into one single year, so that literature too would turn out to be, as
our Eastern-Jewish grand- and great-grandfathers would have called it, a nice Bilbul.
There is no Ostjudenfrage, there is only a Judenfrage – and even that
doesn’t really exist. By the way, imagine only that all that German fear of
the Ostjuden were to be directed not at the Ostjuden as such, but
at these same people as future Westjuden (well, your kind.)

A generation
of Jews who were relatively free from the anxiety of social climbing was
beginning to look inward. These were the years of Freud and the great Jewish
cultural critics, the time of the inflow of Jews into the membership and
leadership of the Social Democratic party, and of the emergence of Zionism. The
constant handling of the Ostjudenfrage – the confrontation with the parvenus
– served well the purposes of this reassessment. Recognizing the foreigners as
a reflection of oneself was essential for the entire process. It is not by
chance that the Viennese Jews took such an important part in it. After all, Vienna was the real capital of Galicia, constantly refilled with
new Eastern immigrants.

As an aspect
of this process of reconsideration, Ostjuden were beginning to be looked
upon with a different eye – not by everyone, not everywhere, but surely by a
significant, articulate, and outspoken minority. “It is a fact that not only
I,” wrote Gershom Scholem in his memoirs, “but many, many of my contemporaries
felt this pull toward the Ostjuden.” This was to a large measure, no
doubt, a matter of a generational conflict, as Scholem indeed hastened to add,
but it may have also been something else: an expression of a new sense of self.
Jews were beginning to accept the heterogeneity of their communality and to
acknowledge the positive potential of this pluralism. It was for many of them a
matter of reaching the limits of assimilation and promptly halting at the
brink. From that point one could only turn backward and inward, seeking a new
definition for one’s identity, and often also a new self-respect.

By Central and Eastern European standards, ostjüdisch
culture differed strongly in terms of male-female relations from that of
neighboring non-Jewish populations as well as from historical norms among Jews
belonging to other ethnic groups. Eastern European Jews had a propensity for
early marriage followed by a sequence of divorce and fairly rapid remarriage.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well as non-Ashkenazi Jews tended to
view such behavior as promiscuous. (See Late Marriage [in Hebrew,
חתונה מאוחרת][174]).

In addition,
Eastern European Jewish women were often breadwinners and as a result of Jewish
educational reforms associated with the Haskalah often had superior knowledge
of gentile culture than Jewish men or non-Jewish women did. Gentiles and
assimilated Jews tended to view Jewish men – especially when Eastern European
Jewish – as less virile than gentile males.

Not
only did emancipation make far more non-Jews much more aware of the differences
between non-Jews and Ostjuden and thereby thwart one of the major goals
of emancipation by creating a stronger sense of otherness on both sides of the
Jewish-Gentile divide, but the enhanced perception of Jewish difference in
matters of gender mores also interacted with the ongoing process of the
emancipation of women to create a separate sexually-charged non-religious
identity for Jews in Central and Eastern Europe while at the very same time
internal Jewish conflicts over the unfair treatment of Jewish women tended to
weaken rabbinic authority.[xxviii]

In a sort of foreshadowing of contemporary criticism of Islam with
regard to women’s issues like the hijab, an “official declaration [from German
courts in the first decade of the twentieth century] to the effect that Jewish
law ran counter to good German morals sent tremors through both liberal and
Orthodox Jewry.”

As the
legal controversy created doubt about Jewish religion among Jews, it
strengthened a sort of defensive Jewish identity when critics of Jewish law
showed evidence of anti-Semitism.

The dialogue between German Jews and German non-Jews about
Jewish sexuality probably reached its highpoint in 1903 with the publication of
Geschlecht und Charakter by the Austrian Jewish philosopher and culture
critic Otto Weininger, who committed suicide after presenting his analysis of
the feminine aspects of the character of the Jewish male and of the Jewish race
in Chapter XIII Das Judentum (Judaism or Jewry).[xxx]

As if to
underscore such perceptions of Jewish sexual ambiguity, Jewish women because of
cultural and educational advantages tended in the early twentieth century to
take leading roles perceived as masculine in general politics.

Not only did the participation of Jewish women increase the
disproportionate size of the Jewish voice in Central and Eastern European
politics, but they also dominated the leadership of the feminist movement then
as they do now. (Note that Rosa Luxemburg is typical of a cohort of politically active Jewish women
at the beginning of the twentieth century.)

In parallel
with such general political activities, Jews have taken the leading role in a
homosexual regenderization program that has challenged traditional religion and
culture among Jews and non-Jews while it has served as a club to demonize
Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.

Not only has the increasing
prominence of the issue of sexuality associated with the emancipation of women
and concomitant regenderization activism sharpened the boundaries of Jewish
secular identity, but it also seems to have validated a sense of superior
secular Jewish ethics as a replacement for belief in God who made the Covenant
with Israel.
A similar phenomenon also exists among Islamists, who like Sayed Qutb disdain
the West because of a perception of Western sexual license and also among Orientalists
of past generations, who associated Arabs and Muslims with hedonism.

In the post WWII period the organized American Jewish
community, wealthy Jewish donors and the State of Israel have each for their
own purposes fostered such feelings of Jewish uniqueness and superiority
through the development of special Holocaust or Israel study materials at the
pre-college level and of“scholarly”
think tanks or academic institutes to study the Holocaust or the ME from a
Zionist viewpoint.

Such institutions serve as the main source of knowledge
about Jews, Judaism, Zionism, the State of Israel, and the ME with resulting
distortion of American Jewish and non-Jewish discourse on

In addition to influencing American foreign
policy, this ongoing indoctrination effort has strongly affected American
Judaism. At this point, except for small groups of
religious anti-Zionists, Jewish religion in the USA barely exists in any living
form, for it has been cannibalized by an ethnic fundamentalist cult consisting
of:

·Ethnic narcissism,

·Holocaust obsession, and

·Worship of the state of Israel.

All the remains of the traditional Jewish communal
consciousness is a very dangerous form of politicized ethnic fundamentalism, which
judges good and evil in all situations by benefit to “the Jews.” As a result, not only does Judonia – as it exists in America – suffer none
of the doubts that plagued the British Empire from the end of the nineteenth
century until the collapse after WWII, but by creating a system of Holocaust
commemoration and observance to play the role of a secular American religion,
Judonia has also inured Americans to the Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi and
Somali suffering that has resulted from Neoconservative policies.
Judonia selects worthy genocides on the basis of benefit to the Jewish people
as defined by Zionist ideology. (See Monsters:
Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power.[183])

As straightforward as the national
politics of America Jews may seem, the politics within the Jewish community are
something else again. The inner workings of the Jewish organizational world are
arcane, Byzantine, and convoluted, so much so that even seasoned insiders often
feel lost without a compass. The authoritative American
Jewish Year Book lists about three hundred national Jewish organizations and
close to two hundred local federations of Jewish charities. Their combined
budget – counting synagogue dues, Sunday school tuition, and Medicare payments
to Jewish hospitals – totals somewhere upwards of $6 billion per year.
That is more than the gross national product of half the members of the United
Nations. Indeed the precise total has never even been calculated.

Today, the budget
is even larger, and this figure does not include many organizations and private
individuals involved in Judonia activities separate from the organized Jewish
community.

The
assets of the 200 chief donors to Israel
advocacy activities probably total somewhere between $100 billion to $250
billion,[xxxii]
which is comparable to or larger than the GDP of the State of Israel. If the megadonors are
treated as constituting practically the entire economy of Judonia, and if
Judonia’s GDP (=
consumption + gross investment + Judonia’s spending + [exports − imports]) is calculated from the total resources they own
or control, the size of Judonia’s economy as measured by its GDP is probably an
order of magnitude larger at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Judonia’s economic
power has developed over a long time period that starts in the pre-Judonia
period as early as the beginning of the Middle Ages when the Jewish involvement
in trading Slavic slaves and luxury goods gave the Jewish community small
economic advantages over other populations despite various religious
restrictions. Over time small advantages compound.

While the wars of
the Reformation impoverished a large section of German Jewry just as it ruined
many German Christians, the Jewish upper economic classes had been poised to
profiteer from financing both sides in the wars and in outfitting the soldiers.
In addition, the movement of German Jews Eastward meant that they extended
their economic activities into collapsing Poland, which remained a cash cow
even as it collapsed or because it was collapsing in a sort of foreshadowing of
disaster capitalism. (See The Shock
Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism[186]by Naomi Klein.)

The Napoleonic
Wars and continuing dissolution of the Polish state created

the foundation of the
Cousinhood of the wealthiest British Jews,

the beginnings of the modern
French wealthy Jewish elite, and

far closer connections between
the German aristocracy and moneyed German Jews (Geldjuden[xxxiii])
both financially and by marriage.

This
last development brought a pattern already existing in Poland for several centuries
westward to the German territories.

Not only did German and Austrian policy in their Polish
territories (or more accurately Polish colonies) create tremendous
opportunities for Polish Jews as native collaborators, but both states
attempted to exclude all but the most economically useful Polish Jews from
settling in central German-speaking territories while erratic government
attempts to restrict Jewish family size and marriage among native German and
Austrian Jews tended to drive younger sons or less wealthy German and Austrian
Jews westward to France, the UK, and the USA. In all cases, these Jewish
immigrants had tremendous advantages over most natives and other immigrants to
these three countries because Jews often brought their own capital to their new
homes and generally still connected into some sort of family or supra-family
support network in the old country.

In the USA
before the Civil War, German and Austrian Jewish immigrants with some knowledge
of European estate management and the Polish arenda
system[187]
profited immensely while they helped to make the economics of Southern Slavery
financially sound. While it is difficult to determine whether Yankee or NY
German Jewish investors were more significant to the Southern economy, the
foundations of NY Jewish investment and commercial banking lie in slavery.[xxxiv]

Meanwhile, Eastern European Jewish immigrants brought
westward aforementioned much more aggressive Polish business practices than
those to which German Jews or Christians were accustomed. For example, Jewish
domination of the wholesale cattle trade and associated exploitive practices
often expressed themselves as middle market restraint of trade and angered
German Christian butchers to no end especially because Jewish butchers were
favored in various forms of vertical collusion. As a result, not only did Saxon
Christian butchers become important organizers of anti-Semitic political
activity in Germany, but in “On
the Jewish Question[188]” Marx simply
described the reality that the Saxon butchers and other non-Jewish German
interest groups faced because of the transformation of German and to a lesser
extent Austrian Jews into a highly aggressive entrepreneurial class as an
inadvertent consequence of state policy:

Let us consider the actual,
worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday
Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his
religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of
Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly
religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering
and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation
of our time.

An organization of society which
would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility
of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness
would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the
other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical
nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his
previous development and works for human
emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical
expression of human self-estrangement.

We recognize in Judaism,
therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through
historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have
zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it
must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

Modifications in German regulatory law could have controlled
or limited the offensive business practices, but the alliance of German
aristocratic political might and German Jewish economic clout conspired to
prevent change. Columbia Professor Fritz Stern describes this relationship at a
personal level in Gold and Iron: Bismarck,
Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire.[189] (The book
is disappointing because it focuses on personal relations and fails to discuss
the effect of ethnicity on the economics of German state.)

The marriage of the children of Bismarck and his Jewish
banker Bleichröder
personified the ultimate conjunction of money and power in Imperial German
political life.

In October 1873, a stock market crash changed this
state of affairs in one blow. The economy had heated to the boiling point, a
result of billions in French war reparation payments. The crash affected the
entire Continent and came in the wake of feverish speculation in several
European countries by reckless promoters with close political connections.
Although the various governments had been warned of these machinations, they
had done little to restrain them. The bubble burst first in Austria. From there the panic
spread to Germany and the
rest of Europe. In Germany alone, tens of thousands of
middle-class and aristocratic families lost everything. The crash provoked a
wave of anti-Semitic agitation unlike anything Germany
– or France
– had seen since the Crusades or the Black Death. Jews were said to be
“inferior” and “immoral”; their successes over the preceding two or three
decades were due entirely to devious, even criminal manipulations. It was not
an accident that so many stockbrokers happened to be Jews. At whose expense had
they been enriching themselves?

Nine months earlier, in a sensational
speech in the Reichstag, the Jewish liberal Eduard Lasker had sounded a first
dire warning. Lasker exposed the ruthless activities of Bethel Henry
Strousberg, a Prussian railroad tycoon and converted Jew, revealing
Strousberg’s notorious system, of winning government concessions by lining the
pockets of parliamentarians and high officials. Strousberg had played a major
role in the German economy for years. “That fellow will one day soon be emperor
of Germany,”
Engles had written Marx in September 1869. “Wherever you go, everyone speaks
only of Strousberg. His enormous industrial and railroad holdings collapsed
even before the general crash. For the sake of his aristocratic partners – who
included the Silesian dukes of Ujest and Ratibor, the Prussian count
Lehndorff-Steinort, and a Prince Wilhelm zu Putbus (soon dubbed Kaputbus) – Bismarck, with
Bleichröder’s assistance, made a last-minute effort to stave off their
bankruptcy with state funds. In his characteristic style, Bismarck told the French ambassador:

2 dukes, 1 general, half a dozen
ladies in waiting, twice that many chamberlains, 100 owners of coffeehouses and
all the cabmen of Berlin
found themselves totally ruined. The emperor took pity on the dukes, thee aide
de camp, the ladies in waiting and charged me with pulling them out of trouble
I appealed to Bleichröder, who on condition of getting a title of nobility,
which as a Jew he very much valued, agreed to rescue the duke of Ujest and
General Count Lehndorff. Two dukes & an aide de camp saved – frankly this
is worth the “von” we bestowed on the good Bleichröder.

For all intents of purpose Judonia’s financial structures
and their relations to important external power brokers and power centers were
fully in place in the 1870s before the 1881 pogroms, from which the beginning
of the Zionist movement is usually dated.

Before the founding of the State of Israel there were two
important post-1881 developments in the economy of Judonia:

the
Great Crash followed by the Great Depression and

the
Great Liquidation of Jewish Assets in Germany
and Austria
under the Haavarah Agreement.

While the New York German Jewish elite was important in the
1870s, it was nowhere near as exalted as the German Jewish elite and had competition
from the investment banks founded by older non-Jewish merchant elites of Philadelphia, Boston, and New York. A sort of
ethnic competition or warfare divided the US investment banking industry. The
conflict was particularly strong in the 1920s until Goldman Sachs discovered
leverage. At this point determining how decisions were made is difficult. Top
management could have made the choices, but then as now informal networks of
Jewish financiers worked together to protect one another or share information
and sometimes strategies. In any case, the preponderance of the evidence
suggests that Jewish investment banks managed through the use of leverage and
derivatives to cause the Great Crash while simultaneously they became
disproportionately crash rich. Together the banking community advised the
Federal Reserve Board of Governors to pursue of policy of contracting the money
supply to transform the Great Crash into the Great Depression. Little actual
persuasion was necessary to convince the Federal Reserve to pursue exactly the
same policies it had followed successfully in 1924 and 1927.

The ultimate scope of the economic downturn was probably not
anticipated. It lasted for the most part until the beginning of WWII in the USA (or 1946 by some analysts) even though Germany
managed to achieve recovery by 1936. During the Great Depression the Jewish and
non-Jewish investment banks acquired valuable equity and assets at fire sale
prices, but Jewish institutions did distinctly better.

In combination with the Great Liquidation this result made
the American sector dominant within the developing Judonian economy and made it
possible for American Jews to displace the traditional American WASP elite by
the twenty-first century.

Discussion or investigation in the USA about the reasons for the Great
Crash and the Great Depression has rarely gone beyond identifying investment
strategies that exacerbated the Crash and monetary policy that lengthened the
Depression. In any case, not only was the type of forensic statistical analysis
yet to be developed that could have helped elucidate the nature of the Great
Depression, but McCarthyism seized the public’s attention in the late 1940s,
and no one was willing to address the ethnic aspect of the finance industry
after the mass killing of Jews during WWII became general knowledge.

Reich decree 55/33 and attached letters between
representatives of the German government and Zionist representatives
constituted the Haavarah or Transfer Agreement. It became official on August
10, 1933, ended the Jewish boycott of Germany,
and facilitated Zionist economic and infrastructure development in Palestine as well as the emigration of Jews from Germany, Austria
and Czechoslovakia to Palestine. The agreement
provided the Zionist movement in Palestine with
tremendous infusion of cash that went to purchases from Germany. (See The
Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and
Jewish Palestine[194]by Edwin Black, pp. 249-250.)

Because the German Jewish financial elite was in the
forefront of Jewish opposition to Zionism, the Liquidation removed an
impediment to Zionist goals and probably made other wealthy Jews less hostile
and more willing to work with Zionists and Zionist organizations. This effect
was particularly important in the USA.

During the Liquidation descendants of Bleichröder and
Bismarck made repeated application for Aryanization. Because the most important
German Nazis officials often came from the German and Austrian petite
bourgeoisie, which was often at least as hostile to the German aristocratic
elite as it was to the German Jewish money elite, with whom the aristocrats
were so entangled, refusal was practically reflex, and members of two of the
most powerful and influential families in German history had no choice but to
leave Germany for the USA and the UK.

In the nineteenth and twentieth century Jewish
politics modernizes rapidly and develops a much more international apparently
philanthropic character while at the same time it begins to make far more
sophisticated use of the legal or political system. In other cases it begins to
take a grass roots and occasionally conspiratorial form.

According to the Talmud (Bava Batra 8b)
redeeming captives is a “great commandment” (mitzvah rabbah) upon the community
to act upon its members.

In a particularly famous case during the Middle
Ages Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (Maharam) forbade Jewish communities from paying
a ransom for his freedom because he feared that rulers would take advantage of
the communal obligation.

The ransoming of captives is a sort of
proto-insurance system that was particularly important for a community, whose
income depended on long distance trade, and the Maharam acted to protect the
system just as an insurance executive would try to avoid paying claims based in
insurance fraud.

Jewish charity served Jewish business interests
and many other purposes including providing a social welfare network for the
community, providing a means of self-memorialization, influencing the
community, manipulating non-Jews and of course sincerely expressing devotion to
God.

As the Jewish financial elite became richer in
parallel with the spread of Enlightenment, the members became much more
involved in charity and social welfare as Jewish and Enlightenment ideals
merged in their minds.

There were a few others, but the above four all had the
same basic structure and gradually took on a sort of mythic meaning that has
little connection to reality. International Jewish philanthropic efforts
provided a regular international framework for some of the wealthiest Jews to
interact outside of business, and the philanthropists looked for non-emergency
situations, where their largesse and connections could be helpful.

SouthwesternUniversity Professor Lisa Moses Leff
discusses the development of modern French Jewish philanthropy in her book Sacred
Bonds of Solidarity: The Rise of Jewish Internationalism in Nineteenth Century
France.[199]
It appears to contain useful information but contains a chapter “The Myth of
Jewish Power” even though it generally makes more sense to discuss the myth of
Jewish powerlessness or is probably more correct to discuss the conditions
under which some Jews were able to exert a tremendous amount of financial or
political power during the time period in question.

Vice-President Adolphe Crémieux (Isaac
Moïse Crémieux) of Consistoire
Central des Israélites de France" (Central Consistory[200]
of the Jews of France) is a typical powerful well-connected French Jewish
politico of nineteenth century. As a Frog Prince,[xxxvii]
he attempted to intervene with the French government on behalf of Damascus Jews
during 1840 and worked closely with the Cousinhood to pressure the Egyptian and
Ottoman governments.

Alliance
Israélite Universelle is an
international Jewish organization based in France. It was founded in Paris in 1860 by Adolphe Crémieux, as a response to the Damascus affair, with the
goal to protect human rights of Jews as citizens of countries where they live.
The organization was created to combine the ideals of self-defense and
self-sufficiency through education and professional development among Jews
around the world.

In
addition, the organization operates a number of Jewish day schools, and is
responsible for the standardazation of the Ladino language.

In
1870, Charles Netter of the AIU received a tract of land from the Ottoman
Empire as a gift and started an agricultural school Mikveh Israel, the first modern Jewish
agricultural settlement which grew oranges.

During
the Pre-1948 period in what was then the British Mandate of Palestine, the AIU
ran anti-missionary schools to teach young Jews French and Hebrew to help
create a more cohesive Jewish nation in Israel.

The AIU schools
constitute the first attempt to create a uniform international Jewish school
system. Because after 1900 many AIU teachers were Zionists, the AIU paid for
Zionist indoctrination of Arab, Persian, and Spanish Jewish students from North
Africa to Iran.
In Farewell, Babylon: Coming of Age in Jewish
Baghdad,[202]
author Naim Kattan mentioned his Zionist instructor at an AIU school in Baghdad.

Later as a member
of the French government of national defense, Crémieux
opportunistically acting at least partially for Jewish special interest used
his position to manipulate France
into an act of exceptional largess in the 1870 Décret Crémieux (Crémieux Decree), which
conferred French citizenship on European colons and Ibero-Berber Jews in Algeria.
In one fell swoop he turned Algerian Jews into native colaborators in a situation
comparable to that of ethnic Ashkenazi Jews in Polish or Austrian Poland while
at the same time Algeria as
an integral part of France
suddenly began to look a lot like Ireland
within the UK
of the same time period.

French Jewish philanthropy in Algeria
ultimately created a French Algerian Jewish consciousness that benefited the
State of Israel. During the Algerian War of Independence important French
Algerian Jews whispered to French politicians that France and the State of
Israel faced a common foe in Arab nationalism. Since Algerian Jews emigrated to
France
after Algerian independence, they have often served as a stealth pro-Judonia
pressure group in French politics.

In the nineteenth century until Israeli statehood,
international Jewish philanthropy probably constitutes an important
international regime governing collaboration of organizations and individuals
from the Americas
through the territories of the Czarist Empire. It should not be surprising that
the International Jewish Philanthropic Regime develops in parallel with the
International Telegraphic Union (ITU), which was founded in 1865 and whose
regulated technology was so important in Jewish aid efforts. Today, Jewish
philanthropy serves as the social services sector of Judonia. When modern
American Jewish (Judonian) rescue efforts conflict with Israel government desires or goals
as has happened in the cases of Russian and Ethiopian Jews, eventually the
State of Israel has acquiesced to policies defined by Judonia.

The media campaigns associated with Jewish philanthropy
benefited from the disproportionate role that Jews played then as now in the
newspaper industry, which itself was an outgrowth of the publishing industry,
which had become so important to Jews because of the guaranteed market in
Jewish religious books.

Philanthropic politics has also been successful for
manipulating non-Jewish politicians and groups especially when it has been
applied to non-Jewish groups like African Americans.

In this particular case, the interplay between Jewish
radicalism, the organized Jewish community and extremist Jabotinskian politics
on issues of civil rights for African Americans has been complex but has
nevertheless prevented the development of significant pro-Palestinian activism
within the American black community and has even provided a means to involve
African American community leaders in ongoing effort of Jewish Neoconservative
Jabotinskians to incinerate the Sudan in an act of anti-genocide philanthropy.

Philanthropic politics in the context of the
Dreyfus Affair proved to be the gimmick by which Eastern European Zionist
leaders managed to get access to Western Jewish
money. Professor Michael Stanislawski points out in Zionism
and the Fin de Siècle, Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to
Jabotinsky,[231]
p. 13-14, that Herzl and other contemporaries reinterpreted the Dreyfus Affair
to prove that West and East European Jews faced a common threat of
anti-Semitism only after they became Zionists:

In the face of the seeming dissolution of the
cosmopolitan dream, Herzl began to obsess over the future of the Jews.
Typically, of course, he is said to have come to Zionism as a result of the
Dreyfus Affair, a claim he himself made repeatedly in later years. But in an
important 1993 study, the historian Jacques Kornberg carefully analyzed Herzl's
reportage on the Dreyfus Affair from the beginning of the case to its end and
demonstrated that Herzl's reactions to the first stages of the Affair, well
into 1897, were entirely typical of those of other writers in Die Neue Freie Presse or other liberal
(and often Jewish-owned) newspapers, and indeed of most Jews in France and else
where. It was only after Herzl was a convinced Zionist, and the case itself was
transformed in the late 1890s into a cause
célèbre that he began to interpret it through Zionist lenses.
Nordau also went through exactly the same stages in Dreyfusardism, to the
extent that he, too, would later counterfactually insist that it was the
Dreyfus Affair that made him a Zionist.

Even though the French military
leadership was probably only interested in using anti-Jewish bigotry as a means
to avoid admitting error, early Zionist marketing among Western
Jews employed the Dreyfus Affair to create fear that they would soon
be subject to pogroms and that they could only escape the danger by creating a
Jewish settlement or state in Palestine (or possibly elsewhere -- see Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry[232]).

Linking humanitarianism to
self-interest is an exceptionally effective fund-raising technique and begins
to motivate individuals among the Western and Central Jewish financial elite to
give Judonia substance via

1.increasing funding of
Zionist organizations,

2.British Jewish
investments in Jewish settlement activities, and

3.Zionist Jewish political
contributions to political parties to encourage pro-Zionist British foreign
policy.

In other words, Judonia’s virtual
state consolidation began when the Zionist intelligentsia uses the Dreyfus
affair to unite themselves as a national bureaucracy with a subset of wealthy
Western Jews as a governing plutocracy and with a (potential) mass following on
the basis of Zionist nationalist politics. In fact, the development of anti-nationalist
and non-nationalist politics among other wealthy Western Jews willing to fund
their own political bureaucracies to serve their own constituencies facilitated
Judonia’s development even if it hindered Zionist goals in Palestine, for the
non- and anti-Zionists came to serve as a loyal opposition within Judonia and
not as outsiders trying to defeat Judonia.

The Balfour Declaration
represented the first major Zionist success. It took the form of a letter
addressed to Lord Rothschild[233]
(Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), who was a leader of the
Cousinhood.

Figure 4 Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild

Then, as fears of rising anti-Jewish feeling resulting
from common gentile assumptions about the Jewish nature of the Bolshevism
increased among the Cousinhood and among the German American Jewish elite (“Our
Crowd”), the Cousinhood took direct charge of Zionist politics in the UK while
philanthropy directed toward the Jewish settlement in Palestine became the hook
to enmesh wealthy German American non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews in Zionist
politics after the British government took charge of Mandatory Palestine.

Various Jewish groups have applied refugeeist politics
with varying degrees and kinds of legitimacy in order to justify bringing
Ethiopian Jewish[xxxviii]
communities to Israel
while Neocons initially used the Russian Jewish Refusenik issue as a way of
validating their Jewish credentials. (See The Real
Origins of Neocons.[235])

Levy argues that anti-Semitic politics was for
all intents and purposes defeated by the 1920s. He is supported by available
demographic statistics and by the behavior of the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, German Nazi Party), which went out of its way not to
run as an anti-Semitic political party in 1932.

German Jews founded the Zentralverein (CV) in
1893, and German American Jews to some extent used it as the model for the
American Jewish Committee (AJCommittee), founded in 1906 “to
safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide by promoting democratic
and pluralistic societies that respect the dignity of all peoples” according to
the AJC
website.[240]

Both organizations were initially anti-Zionist, but they are
early expressions of the materialization of Judonia as are the AJCommittee’s
sister defense organizations, which are the American Jewish Congress
(AJCongress) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Zionistische Vereinigung für
Deutschland[241]
founded 1897 was the original main German Zionist organization.

Three main immigrant waves
created American Jewry: Portuguese marranos in the colonial era, German Jews in
the mid-nineteenth century, and Russian Jews in the early twentieth. Each wave
consisted of Jews who wanted to escape the world they knew. They were fleeing
both from the Jewish community and from the Gentile society surrounding it,
Hertzberg wrote. “[T]hese immigrant Jews … felt betrayed by the societies, the
governments, the rabbis, and the rich Jewish leaders who had cast them out, or,
at the very least, had failed to find room for them…. They would not allow the
very people who had betrayed them in Europe to exercise authority in America.”

To be
sure, these immigrants recreated a Jewish community in America. But it was a Jewish
community with a difference. This was a new world, where religion was
disestablished. Churches had no legal hold over believers; likewise, the Jewish
community had no hold over Jews. It was defanged. Over time, Jews developed a
new mythology of an organized American Jewish community led by well-meaning
bumblers.

No
one ever summed up the mythic image of inept Jewish leadership better than the
late author-activist Paul Jacobs. In his 1965 memoir Is Curly Jewish? He
offered an imaginary crisis that captured the layperson’s picture of the three
best-known Jewish agencies: the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL),
American Jewish Committee (AJC) and the American Jewish Congress.

“A fanciful way of
describing the work of these groups,” Jacobs wrote, “is that some guy walks
into the toilet of a ginmill on Third
Avenue, New York,
and while he’s standing at the urinal, he notices that someone has written
‘Screw the Jews’ on the toilet wall.” A quick phone call is made and “an ADL
man rushes down to the bar” to dust the wall for fingerprints. The ADL checks
the prints against its files of 2 million known anti-Semites, then publishes a
photo of the wall in its next bulletin, saying it shows anti-Semitism is on the
rise and “everyone should join B’nai B’rith.” Next to arrive would be the
representative of the American Jewish Committee, who would look around, the
announce plans for a major academic study of “anti-Semitic wall-writing since Pompeii.” AJC would also
publish a booklet proving that a Jew had invented the martini, to be
distributed in bars nationwide. Then the American Jewish Congress would arrive,
thow up a picket line outside the bar, and petition the Supreme Court to bar
the sale of liquor “to anyone making an anti-Semitic remark.”

The passage above contains several
misconceptions but is typical of the effort to make present Jewish “defense”
organizations specifically and Jews in general appear as harmless and
insignificant in order to assuage gentile concerns and fears. Such
self-camouflaging may be an historical practice

that could have arisen in Commonwealth Poland
because Jews were so economically important and indispensable and

that may have reappeared today because the behavior of
Jewish defense long ago crossed the boundary into intimidation and abuse
with ADL espionage and with accusations of anti-Semitism against private
individuals like the Quigleys in Colorado.

The public relations catastrophes associated
with the aggressive “defense” operations of these three official Jewish
communal organizations indicates that Judonia is hardly the most competent of
empires and can make severe misjudgments leading to diminishing returns,
disastrous outcomes, or blowback, but Judonia, as a sort of stealth virtual
empire, does not have the sort of competition that the UK faced from other
Great Powers during the nineteenth century, and the hyper-wealthy Jewish
plutocrats lightly directing Judonian bureaucrats have no problem with
abandoning one project or strategy in order to fund another with greater
promise of return.

As a result, a lot of the nastier Jewish defense
projects involving the court system have moved from the three traditional
defense organizations to Israel Advocacy organizations like the David Project
or StandWithUs while the ADL, AJCommittee, or AJCongress work on inciting Islamophobia,
Arabophobia, or the incineration of Arab and Muslim countries on the basis of
high-minded humanitarian anti-genocide principles.

that the David Project from the start led the Boston conspiracy
against rights to marginalize American Muslim citizens via scare-mongering
against the Roxbury Mosque and

that later the David Project made use of the New
England Israeli consulate as a subcontractor or supplier of resources and
personnel.

Likewise, when American Jews try to use the American legal
system for political harassment of the Palestinian resistance, the plaintiffs
appear to receive little support from the Israeli government while funding for
the lawsuits appears to come almost entirely from non-Israeli or former Israeli
Jewish “philanthropists.”

The US legal
system is particularly friendly to anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian
legal action because of the disproportionate role that Jews play in the US
judiciary.

Brandeis and Frankfurter argued that Zionism would make American
Jews (particularly those of Eastern European origin) better citizens by
resolving the “Jewish Question,” and in the 50s the establishment of the State
of Israel may have encouraged the final abandonment of Yiddish identity with
the result that American Jews seeking authenticity began to find it only in
Israel while a whole plethora of marketing and publicity campaigns through schools,
universities and the mass media seems to have encouraged a majority of American
Jews to identify more strongly with the State of Israel than with their fellow
non-Jewish American citizens.

An American Jew serving in the US regulatory and legal system or
the IRS probably receives a continuous stream of hardcopy and email alerts
every month about the threat that Arabs and Muslims and especially Arab and
Muslim American citizens represents to the USA and to Jews.[xlii]
International Hillel Society fundraising letters routinely libel Arab and
Muslims Americans as terrorists or terrorism-supporters.

This constant din
must be having an effect because discussing USA legal discrimination in terms
of separate systems for Blacks and Whites is no longer adequate. Today American
Jews, American non-Muslim non-Arab non-Jews, and American Muslims or Arabs are
subject to very different justice systems with regard to the enforcement of
501(C) (3) IRS regulations, anti-terror laws, FEC rules, SEC rules, and OSI
law, and the situation is particularly egregious with regard to anti-terrorism
laws, for Zionists have been terrorizing the native population of Palestine for
over a century. Yet, no US
government official ever suggests enforcing the US legal code against Israeli
Zionists or their supporters.

As the primary loyalties of an ever increasing number of
US government officials in the judiciary, the State Department, the Pentagon
and elsewhere prove to lie with Judonia or the State of Israel, the current
situation in the USA is rather reminiscent of the British practice of “lending”
colonial official to serve in the Indian princely-states or the Emirate of
Transjordan in order to make sure that their nominally independent governments
served British interests properly.

Because working strictly via the legal system is in general
too limited for the needs of empire, Judonia also uses forms of grass roots
mobilization and conspiratorial politics.

Early indoctrination in communal cohesiveness and control
of deviant thought may have made it possible for the elite members of the
Jewish community to mobilize a conspiracy against the interests of the majority
of the Jews of Lemberg in Austrian Galicia to murder Reform Rabbi Abraham Kohn
as Michael Stanislawski describes in A
Murder in Lemberg: Politics, Religion, and Violence in Modern Jewish History.[272]
Such mobilization (generally but not always without murder) by (often
self-defined) elite groups among Jews is fairly common in the nineteenth
century even before nascent Judonia to mobilize Central and Eastern European
Jews via extremist organic nationalist ideology associated with the political
Zionism of Theodor Herzl and his colleagues.

The faith of Russian Jewish intellectuals in
the prospect of improvement in the political and civic standing of the Jews had
already been challenged in the first part of Alexander II's reign, when in 1863
Polish rebellion led to increased hostility toward all non-Russian nationalities.
To the surprise of his Jewish admirers, even the eminent liberal journalist, M.
N. Katkov now began to air chauvinist sentiments. Suspicions of the patriotism
of Russia's
Jews grew common in this tense atmosphere. Therefore, when in 1868 the
Christian convert Jacob Brafman charged that Jews constituted a distinct state
within a state, he struck a particularly sensitive nerve in Jews and non-Jews
alike.

Basing his observations on the minutes of the Kehillah of Minsk, Brafman argued that the Kehillot, though
officially disbanded by the Russian authorities in 1844, still functioned as an
invisible Jewish government. This invisible yet pervasive body affiliated with
the ORPME [The Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment among Jews, Russian
acronym] based in St. Petersburg, the English Brotherhood for the Assistance of
Jewish Emigrants, and the Alliance Israelite Universelle -- collected taxes,
imposed its own court system, and through seemingly innocuous fraternal
organizations, made its powerful will known in the everyday lives of Jews. Even
rules about clothing and food were determined by the ubiquitous and omnipotent
organization. Brafman argued that Jewish isolationism arose from
the "Talmudic municipal republic," or the Kehillah, rather than from the teachings of the Talmud, as
Russian antisemites had previously assumed. Brafman thereby
redirected Russian concerns about the integration of the Jews from the
religious to the political sphere. The book's impact was profound. Within two
years of its publication, the governor-general of Kiev
warned in his annual report to St.
Petersburg that the "cause of every last Jew is
also the cause of the worldwide Jewish Kahal
... that powerful yet elusive association."

While the official disbanding makes it hard to know for
sure, Stanislawski’s research indicates that despite Brafman’s claims the
traditional communal mechanisms of control of social deviance were considerably
weakened by the 1860s even if they did persist in secret. Over the next 100
years the power of such “grass roots” local organization probably waxed and
waned in power according to circumstances.

American (and
Russian) Jewish communities to this day will put a tremendous amount of energy
into suppressing critical views of Zionism and often organize through entities
within the Jewish Federation, which is at least partially a descendant of the
traditional Kahal.

Even Jewish political activism, organizing and fundraising
unassociated with Israel
or Zionism has become a tool for Judonia. Because “progressive” Jews have
become indispensable for left of center politics in the USA,[xliii]
AIPAC and other Israel
advocacy and mainstream groups within the organized Jewish community (really
Judonia) paralyzed anti-War activism by tainting anti-war efforts with
accusations of anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism.

Maria
Knowles, the secretary who typed up Scarbrough’s reports of meeting with the
informants and worried that she had participated in a murder plot, lives in Meridian, where she serves
as secretary of the Seventh-Day Adventist church and as a teachers’ assistant
at the church’s school.

He adds on p. 265:

Jim Ingram
retired from the FBI at age fifty in 1982 and succeeded Moore at the Deposit Guaranty National Bank.
He lives in Jackson.
In 1992 he was appointed Mississippi’s
commissioner of public safety, the state’s top law enforcement post.

Ingram disagrees with his close friend Moore
about what happened at Meridian.
“It was an ambush, that’s what they meant to do,” Ingram told me. “No question
about that. They meant to kill them out there that night.”

The techniques that the ADL learned in manipulating the US
government into violating the law may have later proved useful in manipulating
US government officials into facilitating conspiracy against the rights of Arab
and Muslim Americans. Agents of Judonia within the US government almost certainly have
aided this ongoing project.

Jewish philanthropic, defense and other
political or public activities have benefited since the early nineteenth
century from extensive media gate keeping and facilitation in book publishing,
the newspaper industry, entertainment and academics.

Because Jews then as now constituted a
disproportionate component of the book buying public with specialized tastes,
Jewish firms represented the major part of the industry. As Jews developed a
taste for non-Jewish literature and as Jewish publisher branched out from
religious literature, Jewish publishers quickly became the major content
providers of nineteenth century Central and Eastern Europe
and consequently became major players in the related news and entertainment
industries.

There was a
good deal of criticism of distortion in news coverage as well as discrimination
and favoritism in selecting writers, artists and performers, who were to
succeed, but there was a good deal more heterogeneity in opinion and politics
among the Jewish proprietors and investors in content-production before Judonia
became powerful enough to enforce the discipline that exists today in the
modern American media.

Pre-Zionist gate keeping and facilitation in academia is a
special case.

Higher levels of education and involvement in publishing,
journalism, and entertainment predisposed large numbers of European Jews to
seek academic employment, but there were such high barriers against admission
to the professorate that Jewish academics could not practice the same sorts of
gate keeping and facilitation:

that
Jewish publishers, newspaper owners and investors made common in other
professions and

that
Jewish academics and affiliated polemicists practice throughout schools
and colleges today.

When pre-Zionists Jewish academics sought to control
university discourse perceived as Judeophobic, they relied on the Zentralverein
and harassment by non-academic Jewish defense organizations.

Jewish professors and scholars responded to challenges to traditional
Jewish self-understanding like Higher Textual Criticism or to the controversial
proposals of Karaite scholar Abraham Firkovich with topic filtering or by
creating the orthodoxies that have today become the basis for intellectual
intimidation. At the same time wealthy Jewish philanthropists began to found
new Jewish institutions to host the new generation Jewishly-correct researchers
and academicians.

Anthony
Grafton's article "In Bernays, Scaliger, and Others," which is found
in The
Jewish Past Revisted: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians,[294]
discusses the German Jewish classicist Jacob Bernays, who was a very
important 19th century scholar in the tradition of the religious historian
Joseph Justus Scaliger. Grafton includes a significant reservation on pp. 34-35
about Bernays' work that applies to modern Jewish ethnoreligiously and
Zionistically correct scholarship of academics like Alan Segal of
Columbia, Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan, Jacob Lassner of Northwestern
University, and Alexander Joffe formerly of Purchase College.

Most
important of all, Bernays could not deal honestly with some of Scaliger's most
radical and challenging theories about history and exegesis. Bernays insisted
that he himself had no faith in biblical criticism. Historical readings of the
Old Testament he dismissed as pseudo-scholarly profanations of a sacred text,
based only on wild hypotheses. Scaliger had other views. He not only found but
published (and refused to abridge the Egyptian dynasty lists that plunged the
world of European historical learning into a century and more of crisis. Worse
still, he speculated in radical ways about the gaps and defects of the
Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. Scaliger noted that the Masoretic text was
relatively late: he dated it to around the time of Gamaliel, whose remark that masoret seyag la-torah (tradition is a
fence to the law) he took as a reference to the Masoretic apparatus. And he
insisted that even this well-preserved official text represented only a version
of a lost original. Its language, Hebrew, was not -- = so Scaliger claimed -- a
special, holy language, with which God had created the world and in which Adam
had named the animals, but the ordinary tongue of ancient Assyria. Neither was
its script original or sacred, since the Jews originally had used a different
one, much like that of the Samaritans. Only after their return from the
Babylonian exile did they transliterate the text into the square [Aramaic]
characters used in extant manuscripts and the printed Hebrew Bible. The Old
Testament, like the new, suggested Scaliger, incorporated many errors and
showed some worrying gaps. The Masoretes, narrowly Jewish in culture and
tradition, had known little or nothing about non-Jewish history. Their
vocalizations of non-Hebrew names, for example, were often faulty; much less
accurate, Scaliger thought, than those of the more cosmopolitan Alexandrian
Jews who had translated the Septuagint. Finally, all texts of the Old Testament
referred to stories and texts now lost, such as the story of the young man
killed by Lamech, referred to -- but not recounted in Genesis.

It is
important here to consider the issue of ethnicity in (Israeli) archaeological
practice and the ways in which positivism and nationalism met on its terrain.
What is it that makes an Israelite an Israelite?

That question was never posed in
this Israelite settlement debate.There
was no need to ask the question at all. The Israelites were a category of
people known from the Bible who entered Palestine at a particular historical
moment, (eventually) conquered the Canaanite city-states then regnant in the
land, and ultimately built a nation-state of their own – the fore fathers of
contemporary Israelis. The question is not who they were, but how to identify
and locate them.

Before we can study the history of the Jews in the
Russia of Nicholas I, we must examine the legacy of interpretation bequeathed
to us by the classic historians of Russian Jewry. With the luxury of hindsight
it is possible to discern that this scholarship reflected the social and
political circumstances of its authors as much as history itself. This is, of
course, true to some extent of all history writing, but Russian-Jewish
historiography was particularly conditioned by contemporary reality: apolitical
objectivity was neither its hallmark nor even its pretended goal. On the
contrary, all the major historians of Russian Jewry consciously and candidly
wrote history as a political and national statement, hoping to redress the
tragedies by chronicling their horrors and thereby to influence in the most
direct fashion the political fate of the Jews. Many of the resultant works were
issued as party publications or parliamentary briefs. Most were published by
openly ideological presses or periodicals. While the ideologies involved ranged
across a reasonably broad spectrum of political opinion, they were all united
against one common enemy, the tsarist regime and its obvious anti-Semitic bent
as exemplified by the governments of Alexander III and Nicholas II.

This exogenous stimulus to
scholarship quite naturally had considerable effect on the assumptions, as well
as the conclusions, of the scholars. To a large extent, their research was
aimed at tracing the origins and background of contemporary attitudes and
actions of the Russian authorities in regard to the Jews. This led, perhaps
inevitably, to what now appears as an overidentification of the past with the
present, a projection backward of the context of the government’s relations
with the Jews.

Because so many non-Zionist groups including Yiddishists and
anti-Semites had an interest in defining the Jewish people biologically (i.e.,
according to völkisch racist principles)
or historically, most of the other basic orthodoxies associated associated with
Zionism were already in place before 1881 and the founding of the first modern
Zionist organizations like Hovevei Tzion and the emigration of the first groups
of Biluim-Pioneers to Palestine.

An issue of even greater interest to Abrahams was
that of distinctions between European and Oriental Jews. He claimed that there
was “less warmth in the Oriental Jewish home, less of that tenderness,” which
was once a common characteristic of all Jews but came eventually “to
distinguish Western Jews from their gayer but more shallow brethren of the
East.” Similarly, Abrahams felt it possible to detect “a feebler sense of
responsibility in the mental attitude of an Oriental father to his offspring,
just as one detects more volubility but less intensity of an Oriental father to
his offspring, just as one detects more volubility but less intensity in the
Oriental Jew’s prayers.”

Abrahams
describes modern oriental Jewry as in some sense racially degenerate, and the
pervasiveness of such ideas among nineteenth century ethnic Ashkenazim explains
the general lack of interest of Zionist leaders in bringing oriental Jews into
the Zionist movement until they realized that the State of Israel could not be
adequately defended in the immediate aftermath of 1947-8 ethnic cleansing of
the native population without an infusion of cannon fodder.

In the nineteenth century German and Eastern European Jews
were among the strongest proponents of theories of racial revival through
racial purity. Not only was the German Jewish culture critic and Zionist leader
Max Nordau probably at least as important among German non-Jews as he was among
Jews (see 'Do not
have children if they won't be healthy!'[301])
in spreading ideas of racist eugenics, but many German Jewish academics were
also important in the construction of the German people according
to völkisch racist principles and put
their ideas to Zionist use only when German non-Jewish racists excluded German
Jews from membership in the German people.[xlvii]

In other words, just as the financial system of Judonia was
in place by the 1870s, likewise by the late nineteenth century the basic themes
of Judonian educational material were already almost fully fleshed out. To a
large extent Judonian academia could piggyback within the German, British or US
university systems, but in those environments controlling discourse was not
guaranteed, and eventually wealthy donors were funding new institutions like
the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des
Judentums (later renamed the Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judensthums)
in Berlin, Das Jüdisch-Theologisches Seminar (Fränckelscher Stiftung) in
Breslau, and the Jewish Theological Seminary, originally established by Spanish
American Jews in New York City, in a prefiguration of the institutional network
:

that consists of think tanks and of institutes
for the study of the Holocaust, of the Jewish community, and of the State
of Israel and

that functions inside and outside of
university environments for the purpose of manipulating Jewish and Gentile
discourse.

The Judonian academic system
seems to benefit from a secularization of the Central and Eastern European
Jewish tradition that conferred merit upon rich Jews for funding individual
scholars and kolalim (collegia) to engage in Torah study as well as from the
fear that American Jews can no longer control the subject matter taught at the
Middle East studies departments of American universites. The new Israel
studies departments currently being funded by wealthy Jewish donors at many
American represent a new approach to creating Judonian departments within
American universities. (See Jacob
Lassner and Nadia Abu el Haj.[302])

A century ago Jewish opinion was
considerably more diverse and reflected some of the differences in opinion
among the wealthy Jews that provided the money, but Zionist success has
reinforced a political orthodoxy that has begun to consume non-Judonian and
non-Zionist institutions like YIVO and dominate Jewish opinion throughout the
world. (See Making
YIVO a Zionist Organization[303]
and YIVO NewsNo. 204 - Winter 2008[304])

Circa 1900 the situation throughout the Jewish
political world was immensely different from that of today. Throughout Europe
Jews played prominent roles in all sorts or radical movements from Marxism to
fascism and various forms of politicized ethnic fundamentalism often to the
distress of the wealthy Jewish elite (Claudia Koonz discusses ethnic
fundamentalism in the German context in The
Nazi Conscience.[305])

In North America and most of Europe where Jewish
political parties did not generally exist, Jews participate in political
parties or political elites across the political spectrum, but even though the
majority of Eastern European Jews probably were probably assimilationist in
orientation and preferred less ethnically oriented politics, a sizable number
of Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim were heavily involved in five exclusively
or predominantly Jewish transnational political elites:

As
a political elite, Yiddishists were committed to Yiddish cultural autonomy
within a multicultural state (doikkeyt).
The Algemeyner Yidisher Arbeter Bund (Jewish Bund) was Marxist but belonged to
Yiddishist politics just as did the earlier generation of non-Marxist Yiddish
socialists. The members of the Yiddishist political elite were for the most
part politically active only in the territory of historic Poland, which spanned Russia,
Germany, and Austria
before World War I and even more states afterward.

Many
Yiddish-speaking Jews tried to preserve Yiddish culture after they emigrated
westward.

Lenin
considered Marxist Yiddish speakers an important target population for
recruitment into the Russian Communist Party and derided Bundists as Zionists
that were afraid of the water. The Polish Agudas Yisroel Party (Yiddish
pronunciation) was a Yiddish-speaking party that took part in Yiddishist
politics in order to oppose to secular Yiddish culture. Because the Agudoh was
also anti-Zionist, it could often find common grounds to work with the Jewish
Bund and Jewish Marxists.[xlviii]
After the founding of the State of Israel, the Israeli Agudat Yisrael Party
(Hebrew Pronunciation) and various splinter parties have gradually moved toward
Occult nationalism.[xlix]

Some
more strictly anti-Zionist Yiddish religious groups like Neturei Karta have
remained committed to preserving Yiddish religious culture while they disdain
the secular Yiddish culture of the 19th and early 20th
centuries. Unlike the secular Yiddishists, such religious Yiddish-speakers have
managed successfully to transplant their culture and politics to North America
especially in Brooklyn, Spring Valley,
NY and neighboring regions.

Despite
the historical acceptance by European socialists of Labor Zionism as a genuine
socialist movement, the Labor Zionist political elite belongs to the Eastern
European political current that Eastern Europeans often called social
patriotist. Hebrew University Professor Zeev Sternhell tries to argue in The
Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish
State[319]
that Zionists were nationalist socialists but not National Socialists (i.e.
Nazis) or fascists because Labor Zionists were democratic at least among Jews.

Sternhell’s
book is somewhat dishonest because it ignores the class of Eastern European
fascist movements to which Labor Zionism belongs. In Eastern Europe and
especially in regions of historic Poland, fascist ideology was never
as reflexively anti-democratic as fascist movements in the West, and Eastern
European fascism has generally preferred to operate within a formally
democratic framework.

Yet, on the other hand, the revision of socialism by the
French and Belgian socialist rebels itself developed into fascism for one
essential reason – the same reason that underlay the move toward the extreme
right of the generation of 1910. For the revolutionary syndicalists at the
beginning of the century as for the exponents of the new socialism twenty years
later, the proletariat had ceased to be a revolutionary force and Marxism no
longer provided a suitable answer to the problems of the modern world. This loss
of faith in the vitality and capacities of the proletariat, joined with an
unhesitating denunciation of the essential principles of Marxism and social
democracy, this desire to achieve quick results by utilizing the full force of
political power but without undertaking structural changes, this need to come
to terms with the existing social order because one has come to regard it as
natural and immutable, this replacement of Marxism by a national socialism, and
of the revolutionary impulse of Marxism by a planned, organized,
rationalizedsystem of economy, led,
through a natural inner logic, to fascism. Thus in the thirties, fascism often
appeared to be the only system of thought that answered to the logic of the twentieth
century.

Where the above
analysis does not apply to Labor Zionism is hard to discern. In any case, the
Labor Zionist ideologue Berl Katznelson plagiarized the Belgain fascist Henri
de Man while another Zionist leader Vitaly Viktor Haim Arlosoroff openly
renounced democratic principles if they were to apply to the native population
of Palestine.
In New history, old ideas[321]Edward Said discusses the
intellectual contortions through which Zionists put themselves to defend
Zionism.

Zionist
historiography calls Jabotinskians Revisionists or Maximalists. They are
politicized ethnic fundamentalists, who believe in social Darwinism, free markets,
biological determinism, and an essentialist primordialist form of extremist
organic nationalism. Neoconservatism is the latest incarnation of the American
branch of Jabotinskianism.

Of all the
transnational Jewish political elites Zionists offered the most to wealthy
Western Jews with increasing capital resources while the Marxist transnational
political elite promised the least.

Yet, there was a
tremendous similarity among the first generation Jabotinskian Zionist and
Jewish Marxist leaders and later events[l]
have indicated that some sort of Jewish identity has persisted among Soviet
Ashkenazim even including those that remained members of the Soviet elite after

the founding of the
State of Israel.

Despite membership in the former Soviet elite, Russian
Jewish oligarchs hooked up with incredible alacrity with both the international
organized Jewish community and with the Friedmanites (or Neoliberals), whose
movement is in many regards the negative mirror image of that of the Marxism
even to the point of being characterized by a mostly Jewish leadership with a
mostly non-Jewish following. (See Re:
Report: Finkelstein Lecture at MIT.[322])

Not only have Friedmanites as members of a predominantly
Jewish movement proselytizing to non-Jews found it easy to collaborate with
Jabotinskian Neoconservatives on the basis of shared principles and
assumptions, but many Jabontinskian Neoconservaties are also Friedmanite
Neoliberals.

The
transnational Political Yiddishist elite did not take root successfully in the USA.
Immigrant Eastern European Jews created a sort of shadow form of Yiddish
socialism in the American labor movement, but it differed strongly from Eastern
European Bundism.

Even
though labor organizing in the USA had a strong color racist component, Yiddish
American unionizing was not völkisch in the Eastern European sense, and
the Jewish Daily Forward edited by Abraham Cahan to serve as the voice of Yiddish socialist labor
openly ecouraged assimilation.

Following
his study tour as he defined it, Cahan published a series of telegrams and
articles in his paper which described, sympathetically, the national endeavor
in Palestine in those days, the time of the fourth Aliya. This led to the
development of a wide-ranging debate, initiated by Cahan, which persisted from
late 1925 to mid-1926. Its participants were an entire echelon of high-ranking
personalities in the Jewish workers’ movement in America. Essentially the
debate centered on the position of Jewish socialists in America toward Zionism
and Palestine, in light of the tragic circumstances of the Jews of eastern
europe and the closure of the gates of America to immigration.

This
debate is of major importance for research into the attitude of a community
numbering hundreds of thousands to Zionism and Palestine in the years under
review. It reflects the traditionally hostile Bundist positions, but also the
notable difference between them and the veteran socialists who immigrated to
America in the pre-Bund years. The debate highlights the uncertainties and the
ideological crucible through which a segment of the Jewish socialists passed
due to the volatile conditions endured by the Jewish people in those years –
uncertainties which ultimately caused some modifications in their ideological,
but chiefly practical position, and their adoption of a more positive approach
to Zionism and Palestine. In this sense the debate
constitutes a turning point, a shift toward affirmation of the national
enterprise in Palestine by Cahan, the journal Forward and the group of leaders
associated with it, but also by a group of activists among the leaders of the
Jewish trade unions.

Figure 6Forward endorsement of
Roosevelt in Nov. 1, 1936 edition

If American Political
Yiddishists had developed favorable attitudes toward Zionism because of
uncertainties and volatile conditions that Jews faced in Central and Eastern
Europe, there should be some substantial of similar changes amon other
Political Yiddishist groups outside the USA. Instead diminished hostility
toward Zionism among among non-socialist and even religious anti-Zionist
Political Yiddishist American Jews suggests that the American environment was
mediated their ideological transformation.[li]

Not only was Zionism marketed in
America as a way for Jews to become better Americans, but during the same time
period that the Cahan and the Forward turned Zionist, Weizman was using
humanitarian arguments to persuade a significant number of non-Zionist members
of the wealthy “Our Crowd” to join the Jewish Agency [for Palestine, Executive,
American Section], which collaborated with the Zionist movement in the
development of the Jewish National Home under the terms of the British Mandate
for Palestine. (See Baksheesh
Diplomacy, Secret Negotiations Between American Jewish Leaders and Arab
Officials on the Eve of world War II,[324]pp. 15-16.)

“Our Crowd” and
the Yiddishist elite belong to two separate strata of the American Jewish
community. Spanish American Jews who constituted the oldest stratum of the
American Jewish community played little direct role in the expansion of Judonia
in America except for the founding of the aforementioned Jewish Theological
Seminary as the first Judonian academic institution in the USA.

Spanish
Jews arrived in the Americas
mostly before the Revolutionary War. They were often connected to large family
and trading networks. They probably came to the British colonies with more
resources than other immigrants. They were often and probably
disproportionately involved in the triangle trade. Several Spanish American
Jews become noteworthy plantation owners in the slave states, and several
Spanish American Jews played important roles in the Confederacy. The character
of Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind[325]may have been loosely based
on Judah Benjamin, who was Spanish American Jewish and served the Confederate
States of America
as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State successively.

The
second stratum of Jewish immigration to the USA consisted mostly of German Jews
with smaller Austrian and Swiss Jewish components. Like Spanish Jews the
members of the second Jewish immigrant cohort were generally affiliated with
family and business networks. They often benefited from the existence of Jewish
communal institutions founded by Spanish American Jews.

German
Jews generally entered the USA
with some capital, which looked huge in contrasted to the resources that
contemporary Irish immigrants brought along to the USA on fleeing the Potato Famines.

German
Jewish immigrants often possessed expertise in peddling, commodity trading,
wholesaling, retailing, and estate management. Such skills were directly
applicable to the economy of the Old South, and several German American Jewish
families used profits from trading in the southern USA to found important investment
banks that continue to do business to this day.

Once
they achieved riches and became “Our Crowd” – especially in New York idiomatic usage, wealthy German
American Jews tended unlike moneyed Spanish American Jews to prefer to work
behind the scenes and had a tendency to throw money at problems.

“Our
Crowd” set up numerous Jewish communal organizations like B’nai B’rith, which
is the world’s oldest continuously operated Jewish community service and
welfare organization. While the founding of B’nai B’rith was an important
example of German American (and Spanish American) Jewish altruism, the founders
hoped that better social services for impoverished Jews would make the Jewish
poor less of a threat to the status of elite Jews.

At
a later period “Our Crowd” founded the initially anti-Zionist American Jewish
Committee to struggle to improved conditions for ethnic Ashkenazim in Eastern
Europe partially out of fear that Eastern European Jewish immigrants to the USA
might threaten the status of German American Jews.(Nowadays, both B’nai B’rith and the
AJCommittee are very vocally Zionist. In 2002 B’nai B’rith worked with AIPAC to
create the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization 4 Israel.)

In addition to
organizations specifically for Jews, the dominant universalistic and
humanitarian ethos of “Our Crowd” required the establishment of institutions to
benefit the larger society. Brandeis Professor Jonathan Sarna[lii]
writes on p. 308 of American
Judaism: A History:[326]

Jewish
patricians loomed large in the financial, legal, political, and administrative
work of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
and the National Urban league.

Such charity is
part of Judonian foreign aid, and just as the USA expects a return at least in
the form of good will, Jewish donors to African American causes expect American
Black leaders to forego criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel.

When the NAACP
was first founded, wealthy American Jews might have hoped that mainstreaming
African Americans could provide a sort of elevator effect to move the Jewish
elite upward in American society as a whole.[liii]

Whether
opportunistic or sincere, the universalistic humanitarian politics of “Our
Crowd” played very well in the American press and especially in those papers
owned or run by German American Jews, who immigrated to the USA with expertise
in the heavily Jewish German publishing and newspaper industries.

As
publishers of the New York Times, the German American Jewish Sulzberger
family has tried to position the paper as the national journal of record while